JTn7TIT|l,l,l,l.l|l|l|l|l|TIITrMil il I|l|l|l| I'l'lilUiiit^ 


I^n^K^VHY 


Storrs  lEricnltiiral  Collep. 

Vol .. .  jj^.  .  ■-  .•..  .< 

Class  J^O.  .  SSJ: 

Cosi -^ 

'Date  ./!y'J,  ?<  n^i  S  i^r.  • 


E-KESKNTBD  BY 


TnmCTTItTL''' ' '■'■' I.lilili' I'l' I'gHi 


Please 

handle  this  volume 

with  care. 

The  University  of  Connecticut 
Libraries,  Stons 


J 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Boston  Library  Consortium  IVIember  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/fossilfishesfossOOnewb 


[Monograi>h  XIV.] 


The  publicatiouS  of  the  Uuited  States  Geological  Sarvey  are  issued  in  accortlauce  witli  the  statute 
approved  March  3,  1879,  which  declares  that — • 

"The  publications  of  the  Geological  Survey  shall  coasist  of  the  annual  report  of  operations,  geo- 
logical and  economic  maps  illustrating  the  resources  and  classification  of  the  lands,  and  reports  upon 
general  and  economic  geology  and  paleontology.  The  annual  report  of  operations  of  the  Geological 
Survey  shall  accompany  the  annual  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  All  special  memoirs  and 
reports  of  said  Survey  shall  be  issued  in  uniform  quarto  series  if  deemed  necessary  by  the  Director,  but 
otlierwise  in  ordinary  octavos.  Three  thousand  copies  of  each  shall  be  published  for  scientific  exchanges 
and  for  sale  at  the  price  of  publication ;  and  all  literary  and  cartograjihic  materials  received  in  exchange 
shall  be  the  property  of  the  United  States  and  form  a  part  of  the  library  of  the  organizatiou  :  Aud  the 
moaey  resulting  from  the  sale  of  such  publicatioas  shall  be  covered  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States."  "7 

On  July  7, 1882,  the  following  joint  resolution,  referring  to  all  Goverumeut  publications,  was 
passed  by  Congress : 

"That  whenever  auy  document  or  report  shall  be  ordered  printed  by  Congress,  there  shall  be 
printed,  in  addition  to  the  number  in  each  case  stated,  the  '  usual  number'  (1,900)  of  copies  for  blading 
and  distribution  amoug  those  entitled  to  receive  them." 

Except  in  those  cases  in  which  an  extra  number  of  any  publication  has  been  supplied  to  the  Sur- 
vey by  special  resolution  of  Congress  or  has  been  ordered  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  this  office 
has  no  copies  for  gratuitous  distribution. 

ANNUAL  EEPOETS. 

I.  First  Annual  Report  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  by  Clarence  King.  1880.  8°.  79 
pp.    1  map. — A  preliminary  report  describing  plan  of  organization  and  publications. 

II.  Second  Annual  lieport  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  1880-81,  by  J.  W.  Powell. 
1883.     8°.    Iv,  588  pp.    61  pi.     1  map. 

III.  Third  Annual  Report  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  1831-82,  by  J.  W.  Powell. 
1883.     8°.     xviii,  564  pp.     67  pi.  and  maps. 

IV.  Fourth  Annual  Report  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  1882-'83,  by  J.  \V.  Powell. 
1884. .  8°.    xxxii,  473  pp.    85  pi.  aud  maps. 

V.  Fifth  Annual  Report  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  1833-54,  by  J.  AV.  Powell. 
1885.     8°.    xxxvi,  469  pp.     58  pi.  and  mans. 

VI.  Sixth  Annual  Report  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  1884-85,  by  J.  W.  Powell. 
1  83.     8°.     xxix,  570  pp.    65  pi.  and  maps. 

VII.  Seventh  Annual  Report  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  1885-86,  by  J.  W.  Powell. 
1888.     8°.    XX,  656  pp.    72  pi.  and  maps. 

The  Eighth  and  Ninth  Annual  Reports  are  in  press. 

MONOGRAPHS. 

Monograph  I  is  not  yet  published. 

II.  Tertiary  History  of  the  Grand  Canon  District,  with  atlas,  by  Clarence  E.  Button,  Capt. ,  U.  S.  A. 

1882.  4°.     xiv,  264  pp.     42  pi.  and  atlas  of  24  sheets  folio.     Price  $10.12. 

III.  Geology  of  the  Comstock  Lode  and  the  Washoe  District,  with  atlas,  by  George  F.  Becker. 

1883.  4°.     sv,  42'2pp.     7  pi.  aud  atlas  of  21  sheets  folio.     Price  $11. 

IV.  Comstock  Mining  and  Miners,  by  Eliot  Lord.     1883.    4*^.     xiv,  451  pp.     3  pi.     Price  |1.50. 

V.  The  Copper-Bearing  Rocks  of  Lake  Superior,  by  Roland  Duer  Irving.    1883.    4°.    xvi,464pp. 

15  1.     29  pi.  and  maps.     Price  |1.85. 

VI.  Contributions  to  the  Knowledge  of  the  Older  Mesozoic  Flora  of  Virginia,  by  William  Morris 
Fontaine.     1883.     4°.     xi,  144  pp.     .54  1.    ,54  pi.     Price  $1.05. 

VII.  Silver-Lead  Deposits  of  Eureka,  Nevada,  by  Joseph  Story  Curtis.     1884.     4°.     xiii,  200  pp. 

16  pi.     Price  $1.20. 

VIII.  Paleontology  of  the  Eureka  District,  by  Charles  Doolittle  Walcott.  1831.  4°.  xiii,  293  pp. 
2U.    24  pi.     Price  fl.  10, 

I 


II  ADVERTISEMENT. 

IX.  BracbiopodaandLamellibranchiataof  theEaritau  Clavs  and  GreensandMarlsof  New  Jersey, 
by  Robert  P.  Whitfield.     1885.     4°.     ss,  338  pp.     35  pi.     1  map."   Price  $1.15. 

X.  Dinocerata.  A  MoDograpli  of  an  Extinct  Order  of  Gigantic  Mammals,  by  Othniel  Charles 
Marsh.     1886.     4°.     xviii,  243  pp.     56  1.     56  p!.    Price  52.70. 

XI.  Geological  History  of  Lake  Lahontan,  a  Qnaternary  Lake  of  Northwestern  Nevada,  by  Israel 
Cook  Russell.     Ib'io.     4°.     xiv,  2f^8  pp.     46  pi.  and  maps.     Price  §1.75. 

XII.  Geology  and  Mining  Industry  of  Leadville,  Colorado,  with  atlas,  by  Samuel  Franklin  Em- 
mons.    1886.     4°.     xxis,  770  pp.     45  pi.  and  atlas  of  35  sheets  folio.    Price  $8.40. 

XIII.  Geology  of  the  Quicksilver  Deposits  of  the  Pacific  Slope,  with  atlas,  by  George  F.  Becker. 
1888.     4°.     xix,  486'  pp.     7  pi.  and  atLas  of  14  sheets  folio.     Price  .«;-i.00. 

XIV.  Fossil  Fishes  and  Fossil  Plants  of  the  Triassie  Rocks  of  New  Jersey  and  the  Connecticut 
Valley,  by  John  S.  Newberry.     1888.    4°.     xiv,  152  pp.    26  pi.     Price  §1.00. 

In  preparation: 

XV.  Younger  Mesozoic  Flora  of  Virginia,  by  William  M.  Fontaine. 

XVI.  Paleozoic  Fishes  of  North  America,  by  J.  S.  Newberry. 

XVII.  Description  of  New  Fossil  Plants  from  the  Dakota  Group,  by  Leo  Lesquereux. 
— Gasteropoda  of  the  New  Jersey  Cretaceons  and  Eocene  Marls,  by  R.  P.  Whitfield. 
— Geology  of  the  Eureka  Mining  District,  Nevada,  with  atlas,  by  Arnold  Hague. 

— Lake  Bonneville,  by  G.  K.  Gilbert. 

— Sauropoda,  by  O.  C.  Marsh. 

— Stegosauria,  by  O.  C.  Marsh. 

— BroutotheridEB,  by  O.  C.  Marsh. 

— ThePenokee-GogebicIron-BeariugSeriesof  North  Wisconsin  and  Michigan,  by  Roland  D.  Irving. 

— Report  on  the  Denver  Coal  Basin,  by  S.  F.  Emmons. 

— Report  on  Silver  Clilf  and  Ten-Mile  Mining  District,  Colorado,  by  S.  F.  Emmons. 

— Flora  of  the  Dakota  Group,  by  J.  S.  Newberry. 

— The  Glacial  Lake  Agassiz,  by  Warren  Upham. 

— Geology  of  the  Potomac  Formation  in  Virginia,  by  W.  M.  Fontaine. 

BULLETINS. 

Each  of  the  Bulletins  contains  but  one  paper  and  is  complete  in  itself.  They  are,  however,  num- 
bered in  a  continuous  series,  and  may  be  bouud  in  volumes  of  convenient  size.  To  facilitate  this,  each 
Bulletin  has  two  paginations,  one  proper  to  itself  and  another  which  belongs  to  it  as  part  of  the  volume. 

1.  On  Hypersthene-Audcsite  and  on  Triclinic  Pyroxene  in  Augitic  Rocks,  by  Whitman  Cross,  with 
a  Geological  Sketch  of  Buffalo  Peaks,  Colorado,  by  S.  F.  Emmons.  1883.  8°.  42  pp.  2  pi.  Price  10 
cents. 

2.  Gold  and  Silver  Conversion  Tables,  giviug  the  coining  values  of  troy  ounces  of  fine  metal,  etc., 
coioputed  by  Albert  Williams,  jr.     1883.     8°.    8  pp.    Price  5  cents. 

3.  On  the  Fossil  Faunas  of  the  Upper  Devonian,  along  the  meridian  of  76°  30',  from  Tompkins 
County,  N.  Y.,  to  Bradford  County,  Pa.,  by  Henry  S.  Williams.     1884.     8°.     36  pp.    Price  5  cents. 

4.  On  Mesozoic  Fossils,  by  Charles  A.  White.     1884.     8°.     36  pp.     9  pi.     Price  5  cents. 

5.  A  Dictionary  of  Altitudes  in  the  United  States,  compiled  by  Henry  Gannett.  1884.  8°.  325  pp. 
Price  20  cents. 

6.  Elevations  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  by  J.  W.  Spencer.     1884.     8°.     43  pp.     Price  5  cents. 

7.  MapotecaGeologica  Americana.  ACatalogueof  Geological  Maps  of  America  (North  and  South), 
1752-1881,  in  geographic  and  chronologic  order,  by  Jules  Marcou  and  John  Belknap  Marcou.  1884. 
8°.     184  pp.    Price  10  cents. 

8.  On  Secondary  Enlargements  of  Mineral  Fragments  in  Certain  Eocks,  by  R.  D.  Irving  and  C.  R. 
Van  Hise.     1884.    8'\    56  pp.     6  pi.     Price  10  cents. 

y.  A  Report  of  work  done  in  the  Washington  Laboratory  during  the  fiscal  year  1883-84.  F\  W. 
Clarke,  chief  chemist;  T.  M.  Chatard,  assistant  chemist.     1884.     8°.     40  pp.    Price  5  cents. 

10.  On  the  Cambrian  Faunas  of  North  America.  Preliminary  studies,  by  Charles  Doolittle  Wal- 
cott.     1884.     8°.    74  pp.     10  pi.     Price  5  cents. 

11.  On  the  Quaternary  and  Recent  Mollusca  of  the  Great  Basin ;  with  Descriptions  of  New  Forms, 
l)y  R.  Ellsworth  Call.  Introduced  bv  a  sketch  of  the  Quaternary  Lakes  of  the  Great  Basin,  bv  G.  K. 
Grlbert.     1884.     8°.     66  pp.     6  pi.     Price  5  cents. 

12.  A  Crystallographic  Study  of  the  Thinolite  of  Lake  Lahontan,  by  Edward  S.  Dana.  1884.  8°. 
34  pp.     3  pi.     Price  5  cents. 

13.  Boundaries  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  several  States  and  Territories,  with  a  Historical 
Sketch  of  the  Territorial  Changes,  by  Henry  Gannett.     1885.     8^.     135  i)p.    Price  10  cents. 

14.  The  Electrical  and  Magnetic  Properties  of  the  Iion-Carburets,  by  Carl  Barus  and  Viueent 
Strouhal.    1885.     8°.     238  pp.     Price  15  cents. 

15.  On  the  Mesozoic  and  Cenozoic  Paleontology  of  California,  by  Charles  A.  White.  1885.  8°. 
33  pp.     Price  5  cents. 

16.  On  the  Higher  Devonian  Faunas  of  Ontario  County,  New  York,  by  John  M.  Clarke.  1835.  8°. 
86  pp.     3  pi.     Price  5  cents. 

17.  Ou  the  Development  of  Crystallization  in  the  Igneous  Rocks  of  Wa.shoe,  Nevada,  with  Notes 
on  the  Geology  nf  the  District,  by  Arnold  Hague  and  Joseph  P.  Iddings.  1885.  H°.  44  pp.  Price  5 
cents. 


ADVEETISEMENT.  Ill 

18.  On  Marine  Eocene,  Fresh-water  Miocene,  and  other  Fossil  Molhiaca  of  Western  North  America, 
by  Charles  A.  White.     1885.     8°.    26  pp.     3  pi.     Price  5  cents. 

19.  Notes  on  the  Stratigraphy  of  California,  by  George  F.  Becker.    1885.    8°.    28pp.    Price5cents. 
'M.  Contributions  to  tbo  Mineralogy  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  by  Whitmau  Cross  and  W.  F.  Hille- 

brand.     lf<85.     8°.     114  pp.     1  pi.     Price  10  cents. 

21.  The  Lignites  of  the  Great  Sioux  Reservation.  A  Report  on  the' Region  between  the  Grand  and 
Moreau  Rivers,  Dakota,  by  Bailey  Willis.     1885.    8°.     16  pp.     5  i^l.     Price  5  cents. 

22.  On  New  Cretaceous  Fossils  from  California,  by  Charles  A.  White.  1885.  8°.  25  pp.  5  pi. 
Price  5  cents. 

23.  Observations  on  the  Junction  between  the  Eastern  Sandstone  and  the  Keweenaw  Series  on 
Keweenaw  Point,  Lake  Superior,  by  R.  D.  Irving  and  T.  C.  Chamborlin.  18!i5.  8°.  124  pp.  17  pi. 
Price  15  cents. 

24.  List  of  Marine  Mollusca,  comprising  the  Quaternary  fossils  and  recent  forms  from  American 
Localities  between  Cape  Hatteras  and  Cape  Roque,  including  the  Bermudas,  hy  William  Healey  Dall. 
1885.     8<^.    336  pp.     Price  25  cents. 

25.  The  Present  Technical  Condition  of  the  Steel  Industry  of  the  United  States,  by  Phineas  Barnes. 
1885.     8°.     85  pp.     Price  10  cents. 

26.  Copper  Smelting,  by  Henry  M.  Howe.     1885.     8°.    107  pp.     Price  10  cents. 

27.  Report  of  work  done  in  the  Division  of  Chemistry  and  Physics,  mainly  during  the  fiscal  year 
1884-'85.     1886.     8°.     80  pp.    Price  10  cents. 

28.  The  Gabbros  and  Associated  Hornblende  Rocks  occurring  in  the  Neighborhood  of  Baltimore, 
Md.,  by  George  Huntington  Williams.     1886.     8°.     78  pp.    4  pi.     Price  10  cents. 

29.  On  the  Fresh- water  Invertebrates  of  the  North  American  Jurassic,  by  Charles  A.  White.  1883. 
8°.     41pp.     4  pi.     Price  5  cents. 

30.  Second  Contribution  to  the  Studies  on  the  Cambrian  Faunas  of  North  America,  by  Charles 
Doolittle  Walcott.     1886.     8°.     369  pp.     .33  pi.     Price  25  cents. 

31.  Systematic  Review  of  our  Present  Knowledge  of  Fossil  Insects,  including  Myriapods  and 
Arachnids,  by  Samuel  Hubbard  Scudder.     1886.     8°.     128  pp.     Price  15  cents. 

32.  Lists  and  Analyses  of  the  Mineral  Springs  of  the  United  States;  a  Preliminary  Study,  by 
Albert  C.  Peale.     1886.     8°.    235  pp.    Price  20  cents. 

33.  Noteson  theGeology  of  Northern  California,  by  J.  S.  DiUer.     1886.     8°.    23  pp.    PriceSconts. 

34.  On  the  relation  of  the  Laramie  Molluscan  Fauna  to  that  of  the  sucoeediug  Fresh- water  Eocene 
and  other  groups,  by  Charles  A.  White.     1886.    8°.     54  pp.     5  pi.     Price  10  cents. 

35.  Phy.sical  Properties  of  the  Iron-Carburets,  by  Carl  Barus  and  Vincent  Strouhal.  1886.  8°. 
62  pp.    Price  10  cents. 

36.  SubsidenceofFineSolidParticlesiu Liquids,  byCarlBarus.    1883.    8°.    58pp.    Price  10  cents. 

37.  Types  of  the  Laramie  Flora,  by  Lester  F.  Ward.     1887.    8°.     354  pp.     57  pi.     Price  25  cents. 

38.  P'eridotite  of  Elliott  County,  Kentucky,  by  J  S.Diller.    1837.    8^.    31pp.    1  pi.    Price  5  cents. 

39.  The  Upper  Beaches  and  Deltas  of  the  Glacial  Lake  Agassiz,  by  Warren  Upbara.  1887.  8-'. 
84  pp.     1  pi.     Price  10  cents. 

40.  Changes  in  River  Courses  in  Washington  Territory  due  to  Glaciation,  by  Bailey  Willis.  1887, 
8°.     10  pp.     4  pi.     Price  5  cents. 

41.  On  the  Fossil  Faunas  of  the  Upper  Devonian — the  Genesee  Section,  New  York,  by  Henry  S. 
Williams.     1887.     8°.     121  pp.     4  pi.     Price  15  cents. 

42.  Report  of  work  done  in  the  Division  of  Chemistry  and  Physics,  mainly  during  the  fiscal  year 
1885-'86.     F.  W.  Clarke,  chief  chemist.     1887.     8°.     1.52  pp.     1  pi.     Price  15  cents. 

43.  Tertiary  and  Cretaceous  Strata  of  the  Tuscaloosa,  Tombigbee,  and  Alabama  Rivers,  by  Eugene 
A.  Smith  and  Lawrence  C.  .Johnson.     1887.     8".     189  pp.     21  pi.     Price  15  cents. 

44.  Bibliography  of  North  American  Geology  for  1886,  by  Nelson  H.  Darton.  1887.  8°.  35  pp. 
Price  5  cents. 

45.  The  Present  Condition  of  Knowledge  of  the  Geology  of  Texas,  by  Robert  T.  Hill.  1887.  8". 
94  pp.    Price  10  cents. 

46.  Nature  and  Origin  of  Deposits  of  Phosphate  of  Lime,  by  R.  A.  F.  Penrose,  jr.,  with  an  Intro- 
duction by  N.  S.  Shaler.     1888.     8°.     143  pp.     Price  15  cents. 

47.  Analyses  of  Waters  of  the  Yellowstone  National  Park,  with  an  Account  of  the  Methods  of 
Analysis  employed,  by  Frank  Austin  Gooch  and  James  Edward  Whitfield.  1888.  8°.  84  jip.  Price 
10  cents. 

48.  On  the  Form  and  Position  of  the  Sea  Level,  by  Robert  Simpson  Woodward.  1888.  8°.  88 
pp.     Price  10  cents. 

Numbers  1  to  6  of  the  Bulletius  form  Volume  I;  Numbers  7  to  14,  Volume  II;  Numbers  15  to  23, 
Volume  HI;  Numbers  24  to  30,  Volume  IV;  Numbers  31  to  36,  Volume  V;  Numbers  37  to  41,  Volume 
VI;  Numbers  42  to  46,  Volume  VII.     Volume  VIII  is  not  yet  complete. 

In  press: 

49.  On  the  Latitudes  and  Longitudes  of  Certain  Points  in  Missouri,  Kansas,  and  New  Mexico,  by 
R.  S.  Woodward. 

50.  Formulas  and  Tables  to  facilitate  the  construction  and  use  of  Maps,  by  E.  S.  Woodward. 

51.  Invertebrate  Fossils  from  California,  Oregon,  Washington  Territory,  and  Alaska,  by  C.  A. 
White. 

52.  On  the  Subafirial  Decay  of  Rocks  and  the  Origin  of  the  Red  Color  of  Certain  Formations,  by 
Israel  C.  Russell. 

53.  Geology  of  the  Island  of  Nantucket,  by  N.  S.  Shaler, 


IV  ADVERTISEMENT. 

lu  preparation: 

—  Notes  on  the  Geology  of  Soutliwestern  Kansas,  by  Robert  Hay. 

—  On  the  Glacial  Boundary,  by  G.  F.  Wriglit. 

—  The  Gabbros  and  Associated  Rocks  in  Delaware,  by  F.  D.  Chester. 

—  Fossil  Woods  and  Lignites  of  the  Potomac  Formation,  by  F.  H.  Knowlton. 

—  Mineralogy  of  the  Pacific  Coast,  by  W.  H.  Melville  and  Waldemar  Lindgren. 

—  Report  of  work  done  in  the  Division  of  Chemistry  and  Physics,  mainly  during  the  fiscal  year 
18S6-'87. 

—  A  Report  on  the  Thermo-Electvical  Measurement  and  High  Temperatures,  by  Carl  Barus. 

—  The  Greenstone  Schist  Areas  of  the  Menominee  and  Marquette  R-,gious  of  Michigan,  by  George 
H.  Williams;  with  an  introduction  by  R.  D.  Irving. 

—  Bibliography  of  the  P.aleozoiC  Crustacea,  by  A.  W.  Vogdes. 

—  The  Viscosity  of  Solids,  by  Carl  Barus. 

—  Author-Catalogue  of  Contributions  to  North  American  Geology,  by  N.  H.  Darton. 

—  On  a  Group  of  Volcanic  Rocks  from  the  Tewan  Mountains,  New  Mexico,  and  on  the  occurrence 
of  Primary  Quartz.in  certain  Basalts,  by  J.  P.  Iddiugs. 

—  On  the  relations  of  the  Traps  of  the  Jura-Trias  of  New  Jersey,  by  N.  H.  Darton. 

—  Altitudes  between  Lake  Superior  and  the  Rocky  Mouutains,  by  Warren  Upham. 

—  Mesozoic  Fossils  in  the  Permian  of  Texas,  by  C.  A.  White. 

STATISTICAL  PAPERS.  _ 

Mineral  Resources  of  the  United  States  [183.2],  by  Albert  Williams,  jr.  1833.  8=>.  svii,  813  pp. 
Price  .'■)0  cents. 

Mineral  Resources  of  the  Uuited  States,  1333  aud  1831,  by  Albert  Williams,  jr.  1835.  8*^.  xiv, 
1016  pp.     Price  tiO  cents. 

Mineral  Resources  of  the  Uuited  States,  183.'>.  Division  of  Mining  Statistics  and  Technology. 
1886.     8°.    vii,  576  pp.     Price  40  cents. 

Mineral  Resources. of  the  Uuiced  States,  1333,  by  David  T.  Day.  1837.  S°.  viii,  81.!  pp.  Price 
50  cents. 

Miner.al  Resources  of  the  Uuited  States,  1837,  by  David  T.  Day.  1833.  S°.  vii,  832  pp.  Price 
50  cents. 

In  preparation : 

Mineral  Resources  of  tlie  United  States,  1888,  by  David  T.  Day. 

The  money  received  from  tlie  sale  of  these  publications  is  deposited!  in  the  Treasury,  and  the 
Secretary  of  that  Department  declines  to  receive  bank  checks,  drafts,  or  postage  stamps;  all  remit- 
tances, therefore,  must  be  by  POSTAL  NOTE  or  MO^JEY  order,  made  paj'able  to  the  Librarian  of  the 
U.  S.  Geological  Survey,  or  in  currency  for  the  exact  amount.  Correspondence  relating  to  the  pub- 
lications of  the  Survey  should  be  addressed 

To  THE  Director  of  the 

United  States  Geological  Survey, 

Washington,  D.  C. 
Washington,  D.  C,  March  1,  1889. 


ADVEKTISEMENT. 


LIBRARY  CATALOGUE  SLIPS. 

United  States.     Deparlmeni  of  llie  interior.     {U.  S.  geological  survey). 
Department  of  the  interior  |  —  |  Monographs  |  of  the  |    United 
States  geological  survey  |  Volume  XIV    |     [Seal  of   the  depart- 
ment] I 
;  Washington  [  government  printing  olBce  |  1888 

I  Second  title:   United  States  geological  survey  |   J.  W.  Powell, 

i         director  |  —  |  Fossil  fishes   and  fossil  plants  |  of   the  |  triassic 
'         rocks  I  of  I  New  Jersey  and  the  Connecticut  valley  |  by  |  John  S. 
Newberry  |  [Vignette]  | 

Washington  |  government  printing  office  |  18-8 
4°.    xiv,  152  pp.  26  pi. 


NeT?rberry  (John  Strong). 

United  States  geological  survey  |  J.  W.  Powell,  director  |  —  | 
;  Fossil  fishes  and  fossil  plants  |  of  the  |  triassic  rocks  |  of  |  New 
I  Jersey  and  the  Coniiectient  valley  |  by  |  John  S.  Newberry  | 
;  [Vignette]  | 

;  Washington  ]  government  printing  office  |  1838 

I  4°.    xiv,  ]52pp.  20  pi. 

[United    States.     Department  of  the  interior.     {U.    S.   geological  survey). 
Monograph  XTY]. 


United  States  geological  survey  |  J.  W.  Powell,  director  |  —  | 
Fossil  fishes  and  fossil  plants  |  of  the  |  triassic  rocks  |  of  |  New 
Jersey  and   the  Connecticut  valley  |    by  |  John  S.  Newberry  | 
[Vignette]  | 

Washington  |  government  i:)rinting  office  |  1888 

4°.    :siT,  152  pp.  26  pi. 

[United  States.     Department  of   the  interior.     (U.  S.  geological  survey). 
Monograph  XIV]. 


DEPARTMENT    OF   THE    INTERIOR 


MONOGRAPHS 


OF  THE 


United  States  Geological  Survey 


VOLUME    XIY 


WASHINGTON 

CrOVERNMENT    PRINTING    OFFICE 

18  88 


UNITED  STATES  GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 

J.  W.  POWELL,  DIRECTOR 


FOSSIL  FISHES  AND  FOSSIL  PLANTS 


TRIASSIC   ROCKS 


NEW  JERSEY  AND  THE  CONNECTICUT  VALLEY 


JOHN  S.  ISTE^V^^BERRY 


?  '"    f 


WASHINGTON 

GOVEKNMENT    PKINTING    OFFICE 

1S8S 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

Letter  of  traxs.mittal ix 

Preface xi 

PAKT  1. 

Geological  relations  of  the  Triassic  rocks  op  New  Jersey  and  the  Connecticut  Valley.  1 

Geological  sketcli 3 

Geological  equivalents  of  our  Triassic  rocks 8 

TART  ir. 

Fossil  fishes  of  the  Triassic  rocks  of  New  Jeusky  and  the  Connecticut  A^alley  ...  17 

Fossil  fishes IB 

List  of  Triassic  fishes 23 

Descriptions  of  genera  and  species 24 

Genus  Ischypterus  Egerton 24 

Iscbyptenis  ovatns  W.  C.  R 27 

Marshii  W.  C.  U 26 

Agassizii  W.  C.  K 30 

micropterus,  n.  sp 31 

tenuiccps,  Ag.  sp 32 

fultus,  Ag.  sp 34 

robustiis,  n.  sp 36 

elegaus,  n.  sp 37 

alatus,  u.  sp 37 

modestus,  n.  sp 38 

leuticularis,  n.  sp 39 

lineatus,  u.  sp 40 

niacropterus  W.  C.  R 41 

Braunii,  u.  sp 43 

parvus  W.  C.  R.  (JIS.) 45 

latus  J.  H.  R 46 

minutus,  n,  sp 48 

gigas,  n.  sp 49 

Genus  Catopterus  J.  H.  E '..  50 

Catopterus  Redfieldl  Egerton 53 

gracilis  J.  H.  R 55 

minor,  n.  sp o" 

ornatus,  n.  sp  58 

anguilliformis  W.  C.  R 59 

parvulus  W,  C.  R 6u 

V 


VI  CONTENTS. 

Page. 
Fossil  fisbes — Continued. 

Geuus  Dictyopyge  Egcrton Gl 

DLctyopyge  macriira  Egertou 04 

Genus  Ptycholepis,  Ag 65 

Ptycbolepis  Maisliii  Newb ,. 66 

Genus  Acentropborus  Traquair 67 

Aceutropborus  Cblcopensis,  n.  sp 69 

Genus  Diplurus  Newb.;.. 70 

Diplurus  loiigioaudatas  Newb 74 

PARI    III. 

Fossil  plants  op  tuk  Triassic  rocks  op  New  Jersey  and  the  Connecticut  Valley 77 

Sketch  of  Triassic  Flora 79 

Descriptious  of  genera  and  species 82 

Dendropbycus  triassicus,  n.  sp 62 

Baiera  Miiusteriaua  tlug 84 

Equisetum  Rogers!  Schimper 65 

Equisetuui  Meriani  (?)  Brong 8G 

Scbizoneura  planicostata  Rogers  sp 87 

Pacbypbyllum  simile,  u  sp 88 

Pacbypbyllum  brevifolium,  n.  sp... 89 

Cbeirolepis  Munsteri  Scbiruper 90 

Otozamites  latior  Saporta 90 

Otozamites  brevifolius  F.  Br 91 

Cycadinocarpus  Cbapini  Newb.,  n.  sp 92 

Dioiiuites  longifolius  Emmons  sp 92 

Loperia  simplex,  n.sp 93 

Clatbropteris  platypbylla  Brong 94 

Palissya  (?)  sp 94 


ILLUSTRATIONS, 


Page. 

Plate        I.  Ischypterus  ovatus  VV.  C.  R 100 

II.  Ischypterus  Marshii  W.  C.  R 102 

III.  Ischypterus  Agassizii  W.  C.  R 104 

IV.  Ischypterus  micropterus  New  b 106 

Fig.  1.  Fish  of  average  size 106 

Fig.  2.  Unusually  largo  individual 106 

v.  Ischypterus  tenuiceps  Ag 108 

Figs.  1  and  2.  Old  individuals,  showing  extreme  development  of  dorsal  scales 108 

Fig.  3.  Young  individual 108 

VI.  Fig.  1.  Ischypterus  robustus  Newb HO 

Fig.  2.  Ischypterus  fultus  Ag HO 

VII.  Fig.  1.  Ischypterus  fultv-s  Ag 112 

Fig.  2.  Ischypterus  elegans  Newb 112 

Fig.  3.  Ischypterus  tenuiceps  Ag 112 

VIII.  Fig.  1.  Ischypterus  alatus  Newb 114 

Fig.  2.  Ischypterus  alatiis  Newb 114 

IX.  Ischypterus  modestus  Newb 116 

Fig.  1.  Young  individual 116 

Fig.  2.  Mature  iudividual 116 

Fig.  3.  Old  individual " 116 

X.  Fig.  1.  Ischypterus  elegans  Newb 118 

Fig.  2.  Ischypterus  lenticularis  Newb 118 

Fig.  3.  Ischypterus  lenticularis  Newh 118 

XI.  Ischypterus  lineatus  Newb 120 

XII.  Fig.  1.  Ischypterus  macrop!erus  W.  C.  R 122 

Fig.  2.  Ischypterus  micropterus  Newb 122 

Fig.  3.  Ischypterus  Brauuii  Newb 122 

XIII.  Fig.  1.  Ischypterus  Braunii  Newb 124 

Fig.  2.  Ischypterus  Braunii  Newb 124 

Fig.  2a.  Ischypterus  Brauuii  Newb 124 

Fig.  3.  Ischypterus  latus  J.  II.  R 124 

Fig.  4.  Ischypterus  parvus  W.  C.  R 124 

Fig.  5.  Ischypterus  minutns  Newb 124 

Fig.  5a.  Ischypterus  minutns  Newb 124 

XIV.  Fig.  1.  Ischypterus  elegans  Newb Ii6 

Fig.  2.  Ischypterus  elegans  Newb 126 

Fig.  3.  Ischypterus  gigas  Newb 126 

XV.  Catopterus  Redfieldi  Egertou 128 

Fig.  1.  Broad  form,  old  individual 128 

VII 


VIII  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Page. 

Plate  XV.  Fig.  2.  Normal  form,  youug  individual 128 

Fig.  3.  Part  of  niatiivc  lisli,  s  ho  wing  dot  nils  of  iins IS.-^ 

XVI.  Fig.  1.  Catoptenis  gracilis  J.  II.  K 130 

Figs.  3  aud  3.  Catoptorns  gincilis  ,T.  II.  I?.;  po.stcrior  portions  of  bodies  of  two  indi- 
viduals of  sleudor  form 130 

Fig.  4.  Catoptcinsparvuliis  W.  C.R 130 

Fig.  5.  Catoptenis  iiarvuliis  W.  C.  R  130 

XVII.  Catoptenis  minor  Kewb 133 

XVIII.  Fig.  1.  Dictyopygo  macrura  Egertou 134 

Fig.  2.  Dictyopyge  macrura  Egertou 134 

Fig.  3.  Catoptenis  ornatus  Newb 134 

Fig.  3a.  Scales  of  dorsal  line  enlarged 134 

Fig.  3b.  Scales  of  side  enlarged 134 

Fig.  4.  Catoptenis  ?  sp.  young 134 

Fig.  5.  Catopterus  anguilliformis  W.  C.  R 134 

XIX.  Fig.  1.  Ptycholepis  Marsbii  Xewb 13G 

Fig.  2.  Ptycholepis  Marsbii  Xewb 130 

Fig.  2a.  Scales,  enlarged 131') 

Fig.  3.  Acentropliorus  CUicopensis  Ncwb ISO 

Fig.  4.  Acentropliorus  Cbicopensis  Newb 13fi 

XX.  Dijilurus  longicaudatus  Newb 138 

Fig.  2.  Supplemental  caudal  fin 138 

Figs  3  and  4.  Scales,  outside 138 

Fig.  5.  Scales,  inside - 138 

XXI.  Dendropbycus  Triassicus  Kewb 140 

Fig.  1.  Hasal  portion  of  a  frond 140 

Fig.  2.  Extremities  of  a  group  of  braucbcs 140 

XXII.  Fig.  1.  Baiera  Miinsteriana  '?  Uug 142 

Fig.  2.  Pacbypbyllum  simile  Xewb -■ 142 

Fig.  3.  Pacbypbyllum  brevi folium  Ncwb 142 

Fig.  3a.  Twig  with  divergent  leaves 142 

Fig.  3b.  Twig  wilb  apprcsscd  leaves 142 

Fig.  3c.  Cone 142 

Fig.  4.  Clieirolepis  Miiusferi,  Scbeuk  sp 142 

Fig.  4a.  Cone  scale 142 

Fig.  5.  Pbragma  of  Equisetiim  Rogersi  Scbimp 142 

Fig.  5a.  Pbragma  of  Equisctum  Rogersi  Scbimp,  under  side 142 

Fig.  G.  Clatbropteris  platypliylla  ?  Brong 142 

XX III.  Baiera  mnltifida  Fontaine 144 

XXIV.  Fig.    ].  Otozamites  latior  Saporta;   base  of  frond,  natural  .size 140 

Fig.  2.  Otozamites  latior  Saporta ;  summit  of  frond 146 

Fig.  2a.  Portion  enlarged  to  sbow  nervation 146 

Fig.  3.  Otozamites  brevifolins  Fr.  Braun 146 

Fig.  4.  C'ycadinocarpus  Chapini  Newb 146 

XXV.  Fig.  1.  Loperia  simplex  Ncwb.;  main  stem  much  flattened 148 

Fig.  2.  Loperia  simples  Newb.  ;  branch  aud  leaves 148 

Fig.  :i.  Loperia  simplex  Ncwb.  ;  braucbcs  springing  from  stem 148 

Fig.  4.  Dioouites  longifolius,  Emmons  sp 148 

XXVI.  Trunk, of  conifer  (Palissya  ?) - 150 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 


Columbia  Collegf,  New  York, 

August  1,  1887. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  a  memoir  prepared  at  your 
request  on  the  Fossil  Fishes  and  Fossil  Plants  of  the  Triassic  Rocks  of 
New  Jersey  and  the  Connecticut  Valley. 

With  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  S.  Newberry. 
Hon.  J.  W.  Powell, 

Director  U.  S.  Geological  Survey. 

IS. 


PREFACE. 


It  is  hoped  by  the  author  that  the  following  pages  will  do  something  to 
supply  what  has  long  been  felt  to  be  a  want  in  American  geology:  a  better 
knowledge  of  the  fauna  and  flora  of  the  Triassic  rocks  of  eastern  North 
America.  These  rocks  probably  fuj-nished  the  first  fossils  collected  on  this 
continent — fossil  fishes  from  Durham  and  Sunderland,  in  the  Connecticut 
Valley;  fossil  plants  from  the  coal  basin  of  Richmond,  Va.;  and,  still  more 
interesting,  the  wonderful  series  of  so-called  bird  tracks  fii'st  noticed  at 
Turner's  Falls,  Mass. 

A  few  of  the  fossil  plants  of  Virginia  Avere  described  by  Prof.  W.  B. 
Rogers  in  the  reports  of  the  Association  of  American  Geologists  and  Natu- 
ralists, 1843,  and  by  Mi-.  C.  J.  F.  Bunbury  in  the  Quarterly  Journal  of  the 
Geological  Society  of  London,  volume  3,  1851,  and  some  notices  of  the  fossil 
fishes,  with  brief  descriptions  of  certain  species,  were  published  by  Agassiz, 
Sir  Philip  Egerton,  and  Messrs.  W.  C.  and  J.  H.  Redfield,  at  various  times 
between  1838  and  18.56.  Many  figures  and  descriptions  of  the  remains  of 
both  plants  and  animals  were  also  published  by  Prof.  Ebenezer  Emmons 
in  his  Geological  Report  of  the  Midland  Counties  of  North  Carolina,  in  1856, 
but,  though  deservedly  eminent  as  a  geologist,  Professor  Emmons  had 
little  acquaintance  with  paleontology,  and  this  contribution  rather  increased 
than  satisfied  the  desire  for  more  thorough  knowledge  of  the  life  of  the  At- 
lantic coast  in  Mesozoic  times.  No  systematic  collection  nor  thorough 
study  of  the  fauna  or  flora  of  the  formation  as  a  whole  was  attempted  until 
about  1880,  when  Prof.  W.  M.  Fontaine,  of  the  University  of  Virginia,  began 
a  careful  review  of  the  fossil  plants  of  the  Virginia  and  North  Carolina 


XI I  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AXD  PLANTS. 

Mesozoic  coal  basins.  His  results  were  published  in  a  memoir  on  The 
Older  Mesozoic  Flora  of  Virginia,  which  was  issued  in  1883,  as  volume  4 
of  the  Monographs  of  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey.  This  threw  a  flood  of 
light  upon  the  vegetation  of  the  Atlantic  coast  in  the  Mesozoic  ages  and 
established  beyond  question  the  parallelism  of  our  New  Red  Sandstone  with 
the  Keuper  of  Eui'ope;  a  matter  which  liad  been  much  debated,  with 
somewhat  discordant  conclusions,  by  Hitchcock,  the  brothers  Rogers, 
Lyell,  Marcou,  and  Emmons. 

Thus  one  of  the  wants  which  lias  been  referred  to  was  satisfactorily 
supplied ;  but  the  animal  remains  found  in  our  Triassic  rocks  are  still  to  be 
systematically  reviewed.  The  immense  series  of  tracks  of  terrestrial  ani- 
mals found  on  the  old  beaches  of  the  Triassic  estuaries — the  autographs, 
as  I  have  elsewhere  called  tliem,  of  at  least  one  hundred  different  kinds  of 
bipeds  and  quadrupeds  of  diverse  sizes  and  structures  which  inhabited  the 
eastern  coast  of  North  America  in  the  Triassic  age,  and  left  little  other  rec- 
ord of  their  existence — though  beautifully  illustrated  by  Hitchcock  and 
Deane,  are  still  as  mysterious  and  tantalizing  as  ever.  Comparatively  few 
bones  of  the  animals  themselves  have  been  met  with  up  to  the  ^Ji'esent  time  ; 
but  these  confirm  the  conclusions,  drawn  from  the  remains  of  terrestrial  Mes- 
ozoic animals  found  elsewhere,  that  the  tracks  referred  to  were  not  made 
by  birds  as  first  supposed,  but  by  reptiles  or  amphibians.  Doubtless  in  fu- 
ture years  some  Mesozoic  cemetery  will  be  discovered  like  those  of  Tilgate 
Forest  in  England  and  Bernissart  in  Belgium,  where  the  abundance  of  ver- 
tebrate ramains  and  the  perfection  of  their  presentation  will  permit  the  re- 
habilitation of  this  interesting  fauna. 

Tlie  fossil  fishes  of  our  Triassic  rocks  have  long  needed  a  fuller  ex- 
position than  had  thitlierto  been  given  to  tliem.  The  materials  upon  which 
the  Messrs.  Redfield  based  their  important  contributions  to  our  knowl- 
edge of  this  group  of  fossils  were  incidentally  collected  from  surface  expos- 
ures and  were  necessaril}-  limited  in  quantity,  the  fossils  themselves  were 
generally  fragmentary  and  imperfect,  and  an  interval  of  more  than  thirty 
years  has  elapsed  since  their  last  communication  was  made  on  this  subject. 
Having  long  been  interested  in  the  Paleozoic  fishes  of  Ohio,  when  I  came  to 
New  York  to  reside  and  began  to  form  a  geological  museum  at  Columbia 


PEE  FACE.  XIII 

College  my  attention  was  naturally  directed  to  these,  the  most  striking  fos- 
sils to  be  found  in  the  vicinity.  After  obtaining  by  purchase  good  speci- 
mens of  all  the  species  to  be  had  in  the  valley  of  the  Connecticut,  men 
were  employed  to  make  excavations  in  the  fish  beds  at  Boonton,  N.  J.,  and 
from  that  locality  many  hundreds  were  obtained  in  a  good  state  of  preser- 
vation. These,  with  those  procured  elsewhere,  gave  me  much  more  and 
better  material  for  study  than  had  been  accessible  to  any  one  else  who  had 
been  interested  in  the  subject.  The  accumulation  of  this  new  material  made 
it  apparent  that  our  Triassic  rocks  contained  some  genera  not  before  found 
there  and  a  larger  number  of  species  than  had  before  been  described.  In 
order  to  identify  these  I  examined  the  collections  made  by  the  Messrs.  Red- 
field,  all  of  which  were  courteously  placed  at  my  service  by  Prof  0.  C. 
Marsh,  as  were  those  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History  by  Prof. 
R.  P.  Whitfield  and  those  in  the  cabinet  at  Amherst  College  by  Prof  B.  K. 
Emerson.  My  first  intention  was  simply  to  identify  the  species  which  had 
come  into  my  possession,  but  I  soon  found  that  to  do  this  satisfactoi'ily  all 
the  literature  of  the  subject  and  all  accessible  material,  both  old  and  new, 
must  be  passed  in  review.  AVhen  this  had  been  done  it  seemed  to  me  that 
the  facts  I  had  gathered  would  be  a  valuable  contribution  to  American 
geology  if  they  could  be  put  into  shape  and  published,  and  the  following 
memoir  is  the  result  of  an  effort  in  that  direction. 

Many  circumstances  have  rendered  my  task  a  difficult  one.  I  have  en- 
deavored with  sincere  loyalty  to  my  old  friends  W.  C.  and  J.  H.  Redfield, 
father  and  son,  to  secure  to  them  as  far  as  possible  the  fruit  of  their  study 
of  our  Triassic  fishes;  but,  from  tJie  limited  amount  and  the  imperfect  pres- 
ervation of  the  material  in  their  hands  and  the  brevity  of  their  descriptions  • 
it  has  not  always  been  possible  to  identify  and  accurately  define  their  spe- 
cies. Besides  this,  many  of  the  specimens  which  served  as  their  types  were 
burned  with  the  other  collections  of  the  New  York  Lyceum  of  Natural 
History,  and  of  the  specimens  remaining  in  the  Redfield  collection  the 
greater  part  are  without  other  labels  than  numbers  to  which  no  correspond- 
ing catalogue  has  been  discovered.  For  these  reasons  I  feel  that  in  regard 
to  specific  distinctions  my  work  is  imperfect  and  is  liable  to  modification 
with  the  gradual   accumulation   of  more    and  better   material.      T   have 


XIV  TRTASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

thought,  however,  that  the  fossil  fishes  from  our  Triassic  rocks  which  have 
been  lying  in  the  cabinets  of  our  colleges  and  collectors  should  if  possible 
be  made  available  for  the  use  of  teachers  and  students,  and  should  contribute 
their  part  to  illustrate  what  is  perhaps  the  most  interesting  and  j^et  least 
known  epoch  in  the  geologic  history  of  North  America,  that  of  the  Trias. 
As  a  contribution  to  this  history  I  have  accumulated  by  far  the  largest  col- 
lection of  our  Triassic  fishes  yet  made,  have  studied  them  with  some  care, 
have  labeled  them  plainly  according  to  my  lights,  and  have  placed  them  in 
the  Geological  Museum  of  Columbia  College,  where  they  will  be  safe,  since 
it  is  fire-proof,  and  where  they  will  be  accessible  to  those  who  shall  carry 
to  completeness  the  investigations  of  these  fossils  begun  by  the  Messrs. 
Redfield,  continued  by  me,  and  to  be  concluded  by  generations  yet  to  come. 
In  conclusion  I  desire  to  express  my  obligations  for  assistance  and 
courtesies  received  from  Professors  Marsh,  Whitfield,  and  Emerson ;  to  Mr.  S. 
W.  Loper,  of  Durham,  Conn.,  Avhose  enthusiasm  in  collecting  and  skill  in 
developing  such  specimens  as  are  found  in  his  vicinity  liave  resulted  in  con- 
tributing to  several  museums  the  best  examples  of  our  Triassic  fishes  known 
to  exist ;  also  to  Mr.  I.  C.  Russell,  to  whose  intelligent  supervision  of  the 
excavations  made  at  Boonton,  we  owe  the  large  amount  and  excellent  con- 
dition of  the  material  obtained  there. 


I>^RT    I. 


GEOLOGICAL  RELATIONS  OF  THE  TRIASSIC  ROCKS  OF  NEW 
JERSEY  AND  THE  CONNECTICUT  VALLEY. 


MON  XIV 1 


GEOLOGICAL  SKETCH. 


The  rocks  which  inclose  the  fossils  described  on  the  following  pages 
occupy  a  series  of  detached  areas  extending  interruptedly  from  Nova  Scotia 
to  North  Carolina.  They  are  in  the  form  of  basins,  with  their  longest  diam- 
eters northeast  and  southwest,  parallel  with  the  bearing  of  the  ridges  of  the 
Alleghany  Mountain  belt  Indeed,  they  seem  to  have  been  deposited  in 
troughs  lying  between  the  most  easterly  and  lowest  of  these  ridges  ;  troughs 
that  were  for  ages  occupied  b}'  fresh  or  brackish  water  lakes  or  estuaries, 
the  surface  drainage  of  the  adjacent  country. 

After  the  Carboniferous  age  the  whole  region  between  the  Mississippi 
and  the  Atlantic  was  raised  above  the  ocean  level,  where  it  has  remained 
with  little  variation  of  altitude  to  the  present  time.  Of  this  belt  of  elevated 
country,  which  reached  from  the  Green  Mountains  and  the  Adirondacks  to 
the  Gulf,  the  most  easterly  portion  was  much  tlie  older.  This  was  formed 
by  the!  Blue  Ridge  and  the  Hudson  Highlands,  with  one  or  more  parallel 
ridges  on  the  east,  which  have  since  been  depressed.  The  Alleghanies 
proper  were  added  toward  the  close  of  the  Carboniferous  age.  In  Mesozoic 
times  all  this  broad  belt  of  highland  was  suffering  erosion,  and  the  material 
removed  was  carried  away  by  the  draining  streams,  both  east  and  west, 
either  in  suspension  or  in  solution.  That  which  was  dissolved  flowed  off 
into  the  somewhat  distant  oceanic  basins,  where  it  was  deposited  by  organic 
agencies  as  limestone  or  flint,  as  it  was  lime  or  silica;  while  the  suspended 
material  was  spread  as  sand,  clay,  and  gravel  ever  what  are  now  the  plains 
of  the  Mississippi  Valley  and  what  were  then  water-filled  basins  along  the 
Atlantic  coast.  As  I  shall  show  farther  on,  the  first  of  the  Mesozoic  strata 
to  which  we  have  access — composed  of  materials  removed  fi'om  the  ancient 

3 


4  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

land  mentioned  above  and  sjDread  round  its  margins — were  laid  down  during 
the  last  half  of  the  Triassic  age,  and  a  subsequent  subsidence  caused  these 
to  be  covei'ed  by  finer  and  more  calcareous  sediments  during  lhe  last  half  of 
the  Cretaceous  age. 

With  the  Mesozoic  deposits  of  the  interior  of  the  continent  we  have  now 
no  immediate  concern,  as  the  task  before  us  is  to  trace  the  histoiy  of  those 
which  accumulated  on  its  eastern  slope,  and  especially  those  formed  during 
the  Triassic  age,  viz  :  the  shales,  sandstones,  and  conglomerates,  which  were 
deposited  in  the  lakes  and  bays  already  referred  to.  Of  these  Triassic  areas 
the  most  northerly  is  that  of  Nova  Scotia,  about  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  Prince 
Edward  Island,  etc.  The  second  is  that  of  the  Connecticut  Valley,  which 
reaches  from  the  north  line  of  Massachusetts  to  Long  Island  Sound.  The 
third,  which  may  be  called  the  Palisade  area,  extends  from  Rockland  County, 
N.  Y.,  to  Orange  County,  Va.,  a  distance  of  about  three  hundred  and  fifty 
miles.  This  area,  which  has  the  form  of  a  long  and  narrow  trough,  is 
bounded  on  the  west  by  the  Blue  Ridge,  and  on  the  east  by  the  Archaean 
rocks  of  the  Staten  Island,  Trenton,  and  Philadelphia  axis. 

In  Viro'inia  and  North  Carolina  are  several  distinct  and  smaller  basins 
lying  eastward  of  the  Palisade  area,  some  of  which  contain  coal  beds  of 
economic  value.  The  Triassic  rocks  which  fill  these  basins  are  alike  in 
this,  that  they  consist  chiefly  of  beds  of  conglomerate,  sandstone  (sometimes 
arkose),  and  shales,  interstratified  with  heavy  beds  of  diabase.  The  pre- 
vailing color  of  both  sandstones  and  shales  is  red  or  reddish,  but  the  Con- 
necticut area  includes  layers  of  nearly  black  shale  charged  with  carbona- 
ceous matter,  containing  many  remains  of  fishes  and  ijhuits,  and  even  some 
thin  films  of  coal.  Also  a  small  part  of  the  series  in  New  Jersey  consists  of 
dark  or  dove  colored  shales  charged  with  organic  matter,  sometimes  crowded 
with  the  remains  of  fishes,  and  exhaling  a  marked  bituminous  odor  when 
struck  with  a  hammer.  It  should  also  be  said  that  a  small  detached  basin 
of  Triassic  rocks  in  Southbury,  Conn.,  includes  a  thin  sheet  of  impure  lime- 
stone. 

The  sandstones  of  the  series  are  frequently  firm  and  massive,  and  are 
extensively  used  as  building  stone,  important  quarries  having  been  for  many 
years  worked  at  Long  Meadow,  Mass.,  Portland,  Conn.,  and  Newark,  N.  J. 


GEOLOGICAL  SKETCH,  5 

These  quarries  have  furnished  much  of  the  building  material  employed  in 
our  cities,  and  the  fronts  of  fully  one-half  of  the  residences  of  New  York 
are  composed  of  "  brownstone,"  as  it  is  called,  derived  from  them. 

The  thickness  of  the  Triassic  series  in  the  Connecticut  and  Palisade 
areas  is  5,000  feet  or  more,  and  the  arrangement  of  the  strata  among  them- 
selves is  peculiar  and  as  yet  not  satisfactoril}^  explained.  In  the  Connecticut 
area  the  rocks  all  dip  toward  the  east,  the  outcropping  edges  of  the  trap 
sheets  left  in  strong-  relief  by  the  erosion  of  the  associated  beds  forming  the 
bold  escarpments  of  Exst  Rick  and  West  Rock,  at  New  Haven,  Conn., 
Mount  Tom  and  Mount  Holyoke,  in  Massachusetts.  In  New  Jersey,  on 
the  contrary,  the  dip  of  the  Triassic  beds  is  generally  towards  the  west  at 
an  angle  of  from  three  to  fifteen  deg'rees  with  the  horizon,  and  the  edges  of 
the  trap  sheets  form  bold  cliffs,  which  face  the  east  and  constitute  the  sum- 
mit of  the  ridges  known  as  the  Palisades,  First  and  Second  Newark  Mount- 
ains, etc.  In  addition  to  these  sheets  of  trap  the  strata  are  cut  by  many 
dikes  of  diabase,  which  cross  them  vertically  or  at  a  high  angle. 

The  origin  of  the  singular  structure  I  have-- described  has  been  much 
discussed.  Many  of  the  beds  show  ripple-marks,  sun  cracks,  and  i-ain-drop 
impressions,  which  prove  that  they  were  once  beaches  or  mud  flats,  some- 
times exposed  to  the  air.  The}'  are  also  frequently  impressed  by  the  tracks 
of  large  and  small  animals,  generally  three-toed,  but  sometimes  showing 
four  or  five  digits.  These  Avere  at  first  supposed  to  be  for  the  most  part 
the  tracks  of  birds,  but  are  now  believed  to  have  been  made  by  reptiles  and 
amphibians.  We  have  here  autographs  of  perhaps  one  hundred  diff"erent 
kinds  of  animals  of  wliich  scarce  any  other  record  has  been  discovered,  a 
few  scattered  bones  and  one  or  two  imperfect  skeletons  being  all  yet  found 
of  the  creatures  themselves.  Everything  indicates  that  these  tracks  were 
made  by  animals  that  frequented  the  shores  of  bays  and  estuaries  where 
the  retreating  tide  left  broad  surfaces  which  were  their  feeding  grounds. 
Inasmuch  as  many  successive  beds  show  ripple-marks,  sun  cracks,  and  tracks, 
the  conclusion  seems  inevitable  that  the  areas  where  these  strata  were  de- 
posited Avere  slowly  sinking  and  that  the . land-wash  spread  by  the  tide 
constantly  formed  new  sheets,  iipon  which  fresh  records  were  inscribed. 
The  downward  movement  must  have  been  very  slow,  for  it  apparently  about 


6  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

kept  pace  witli  the  accumulation  of  material ;  but  it  was  not  regular,  as  we 
find  alternations  of  conglomerate,  sandstone,  and  shale,  which  were  deposited 
in  water  of  different  depth.  The  uniform  dip  of  the  Triassic  strata  in  each 
basin  and  the  opposite  inclination  of  those  in  the  Connecticut  and  the  Pali- 
sade areas  have  been  variously  explained.  One  theory  proposed  by  Prof 
H.  D.  Rogers^  is  that  the  strata  were  laid  down  upon  a  slope.  This  theory 
might  be  true  of  the  coarse  material  deposited  along  an  inclined  shore,  but 
could  hardly  be  applicable  to  the  finely  laminated  shales  and  limestones 
which  accumulated  in  deep  water. 

Another  view,  advocated  by  Mr.  I.  C.  RusselP  is  that  the  Triassic  basins 
of  the  Connecticut  Valley  and  New  Jersey  were  once  connected,  and  the 
strata  were  deposited  continuously  overall  the  area  between  them;  that 
subsequently  the  central  portion  of  this  area  was  elevated  and  the  Triassic 
rocks  were  eroded  from- it,  leaving  the  two  sunken  margins  occupied  by 
beds  which  rise  respectively  from  the  east  and  west  towards  the  central 
elevated  area.  Mr.  Russell  has  studied  the  structure  of  the  Triassic  area  of 
New  Jersey  with  much  care,  and  in  his  paper  he  presents  many  facts  and 
a  strong  array  of  arguments  in  favor  of  his  theory.  There  are,  however, 
two  difficulties  which  suggest  themselves  and  call  for  further  investigation 
of  the  problem  before  we  can  accept  this  solution.     These  difficulties  are — 

First.  Not  a  trace  of  Triassic  rocks  is  now  anywhere  visible  in  all  the 
broad  belt  between  the  Hudson  River  and  the  Connecticut  Valley,  and  it 
seems  scarcely  possible  that  if  they  once  covei'ed  this  belt  to  the  depth  of 
many  thousand  feet  they  should  have  been  so  completely  removed. 

Second.  It  has  been  found  that  on  western  Long  Island,  opposite  the 
center  of  the  New  Jersey  Triassic  area,  the  crystalline  rocks,  which  are  a 
continuation  southward  of  those  lying  between  the  Hudson  and  the  Con- 
necticut, are  covered  unconformably  by  Cretaceous  strata,  with  no  Trias 
between  them.  This  would  indicate  that  the  Trias  of  the  New  Jersey  basin 
never  reached  over  that  portion  of  the  divide. 

Still  another  theory  has  been  proposed  by  Prof  W.  M.  Davis  to  ac- 
count for  the  structure  of  the  Triassic  beds  of  the  Connecticut  Valley.     This 


'  Final  Report,  Oi'ology  of  New  Jersey,  1840,  pp.  1(16-171. 
-Annals  New  York  Academy  of  Sciences,  vol.  i,  p.  220. 


GEOLOGICAL  SKETCH.  7 

was  presented  by  liim  to  tlie  geological  section  of  the  American  Association 
at  its  meeting  at  Buffalo,  in  1886,  and  was  subsequently  published  in  the 
American  Journal  of  Science  for  November  of  that  year.  This  theory  sup- 
poses that  the  Triassic  rocks  were  once  deposited  horizontally,  or  nearly  so  ; 
that  the  trap  sheets  were  overflows  and  not  intrusive,  and  that  all  were 
bi'oken  and  inclined  by  a  series  of  faults,  the  result  of  lateral  pressure ;  this 
pressure  affecting  primarily  the  underlying  crystalline  rocks,  which,  stand- 
ing nearly  vertical,  slipped  on  each  other,  causing  a  series  of  fractures  and 
uplifts  along  their  lines  of  strike.  Professor  Davis  has  worked  out  this  theory 
with  much  ingenuity  and  ability,  and,  if  it  shall  be  found  upon  further  ex- 
amination that  the  series  of  faults  which  he  depicts  do  really  traverse  the 
Triassic  rocks,  we  shall  be  indebted  to  him  for  the  solution  of  wliat  has  been 
one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  in  American  geology.  But  there  are  some 
facts  which  are  apparently  incompatible  with  its  universal  application.  No 
such  faults  as  Professor  Davis  supposes  to  exist  are  discoverable  in  the 
localities  I  have  had  an  opportunity  of  exaniiniug  since  the  promulgation 
of  his  views,  viz  :  along  the  Palisades,  and  at  East  Rock  and  West  Rock, 
New  Haven;  and  some  of  the  trap  sheets  are  certainly  intrusive,  having 
baked  the  beds  on  both  sides  of  them. 

The  materials  of  which  the  Triassic  beds  are  composed  are  all  pre- 
sumably, and  in  part  at  least  demonstrably,  derived  from  the  adjacent 
highlands.  In  New  Jersey  the  conglomerates  are  made  up  of  rolled  frag- 
ments of  the  granitoid  rocks  of  the  neighboring  hills,  and  the  sandstone, 
arkose,  and  shale  apparently  represent  the  different  stages  of  mechanical 
decomposition  of  the  quartz  and  feldspar  of  the  granite.  The  New  Jersey 
highlands,  as  well  as  other  portions  of  the  Blue  Ridge  belt,  are  known  to 
contain  great  quantities  of  iron  ore,  and  the  erosion  of  the  gneiss  which 
forms  this  belt  must  necessarily  result  in  the  distribution  of  a  large  amount 
of  iron  Hence  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  shales  and  sandstones  all  con- 
tain enough  of  this  element  to  give  them  a  red  or  reddish  color  whenever  it 
is  in  the  form  of  the  anhydrous  peroxide.  The  fact  that  it  is  generally  in 
this  condition,  and  therefore  that  the  rock  is  red,  proves  that  it  contained 
little  or  no  organic  matter  when  deposited ;  for  whenever  decaying  organic 
matter  is  present  in  any  considerable  quantity  it  reduces  the  peroxide  of 


8  TRIASSIC  FISBES  AND  PLANTS. 

iron  to  protoxide,  and  makes  the  color,  so  far  as  influenced  by  the  salts 
of  iron,  gray,  green,  or  bUie.  Where  the  organic  matter  is  in  very  large 
quantity  it  imparts  the  characteristic  color  of  carbon,  and  makes  the  shale 
or  limestone  which  contains  it  black. 

The  general  absence  of  organic  matter  in  the  Triassic  rocks  is  doubt- 
less due  to  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  deposited ;  that  is,  in 
brackish  water,  which  is  always  unfriendly  to  life,  and  perhaps  was  sub- 
ject to  high  tides,  which  caused  physical  commotion,  another  unfavorable 
condition.  We  can  imagine  the  circumstances  attending  the  accumulation 
of  the  Triassic  sediments  to  have  been  somewhat  like  those  which  now 
prevail  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  where  the  advance  and  retreat  of  a  bore,  or 
very  high  tide,  keeps  the  water  always  in  violent  motion  and  turbid,  and  the 
alternating  extremes  of  ebb  and  flow  forbid  the  occupation  of  the  littond 
zone  by  either  animals  or  plants.  The  gray  and  blue  shales  of  Boonton 
and  Sunderland  contain  an  abundance  of  organic  matter,  of  which  sufficient 
would  be  furnished  by  the  fishes  to  partially  deoxidize  the  iron  deposited 
with  them,  while  the  black  shales  of  Plainfield  and  Weehawken,  N.  J.,  and 
Durham,  Conn.,  are  colored  simply  by  the  abundance  of  carbonaceous  matter. 
An  illustration  of  the  truth  of  the  views  here  proposed  is  found  in  the  dif- 
ference between  the  colors  prevailing  in  the  Palisade  area  and  the  Richmond 
basin.  In  the  former  the  rocks  are,  as  lias  been  stated,  generally  very 
barren  of  fossils  and  the  color  is  mostly  reddish,  while  in  the  latter  the 
quantity  of  organic  matter  is  large  and  the  color  of  the  rock  is  blue,  gray, 
or  black. 

GEOLOGICAL  EQUIVALENTS  OF  OUR  TRIASSIC  ROCKS. 

The  aofe  of  the  series  of  rocks  whicli  have  been  called  Triassic  on  the 
preceding  pages  has  been  mucli  discussed.  Maclure  considered  them  the 
(Equivalent  of  the  Old  Red  Sandstone  of  Scotland,  being  influenced  by 
the  similarity. of  their  lithological  characters. 

Mr.  Richard  C.  Taylor,  for  a  time  at  least,  entertained  the  opinion  that 
the  group  of  rocks  we  are  now  considering  belonged  to  the  Coal  Measures, 
being  led  to  this  conclusion  by  the  presence  of  coal  beds  in  the  Richmond 
basin  and  the  general  resemblance  to  the  Coal  Measures  of  Penns3'lvania 
exhibited  by  the  associated  rocks.     A  single  one  of  the  abundant  fossil 


GEOLOGICAL  SKETCH.  9 

plants  which  occur  in  the  Richmond  coal  basin  would,  however,  have  been 
sufficient  to  show  the  error  of  this  opinion. 

Prof.  Edward  Hitchcock,  who  was  one  of  the  earliest  to  consider  the 
subject,  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  our  Red  Sandstone  series  was  the 
equivalent  of  the  New  Red  Sandstone  of  Europe.  To  this  he  was  led 
mainly  by  the  similai-ity  of  their  lithological  characters  and  their  position 
relative  to  the  Carboniferous  rocks  below  and  the  Cretaceous  above.  He 
also  mentions  the  discovery  in  these  rocks  of  portions  of  a  vertebrate 
skeleton  which  was  not  a  fish,  and  he  inferred  from  that  fact  that  the  series 
was  Mesozoic,  because  at  that  time  no  animals  of  hio'her  rank  than  fishes 
had  been  found  in  the  Paleozoic  rocks.  We  have  since  learned  that  am- 
phibians are  common  in  the  Coal  Measures,  and  the  remains  of  reptiles  are 
not  wanting.  At  the  time  Professor  Hitchcock  wrote,  the  Permian  and  the 
Trias  were  not  separated,  but  both  were  included  in  the  so-called  New  Red 
Sandstone.  This  term  was  used  to  designate  the  group  which,  containing 
much  Red  Sandstone,  rests  on  the  Carboniferous,  and  to  distinguish  it  from 
the  Old  Red  Sandstone  below. 

So  Professor  Hitchcock  supposed  that  we  had  in  the  rocks  under  con- 
sideration the  equivalents  of  the  Rotheliegende,  as  well  as  of  the  Bunter 
and  the  Keuper.  The  same  view  was  taken  later  by  Prof.  Ebenezer  Em- 
mons in  his  Geological  Report  of  the  Midland  Counties  of  North  Carolina, 
1856,  page  273,  receding  from  an  earlier  opinion  (1853) — when  he  called 
the  whole  series  Triassic — for  the  reason  that  in  the  lower  portion  of  the 
Dan  River  section.  North  Carolina,  he  found  the  remains  of  Thecodont 
saurians.  On  the  other  hand.  Profs.  W.  B.  and  H.  D.  Rogers  were  led  by 
the  general  resemblance  of  the  ferns  and  cycads  of  the  Richmond  basin  to 
those  of  tlie  Lias  of  Whitby,  England,  to  consider  these  rocks  Liassic,  that 
is.  Lower  Jurassic.  This  view  was  also  shared  by  Sir  Charles  Lyell  when, 
in  1845,  he  visited  the  Richmond  coal  basin  and  collected  a  series  of  fossil 
plants,  which  were  examined  by  C.  J.  F.  Bunbury,  who  had  given  much 
attention  to  fossil  botany.-^ 

Prof.  Jules  Marcou,  on  his  Geological  Map  of  the  United  States,  pub- 
lished in  1853,  represents  the  New  Red  Sandstone  of  Virginia  as  Liassic, 

'Quart.  Jour.  Geol.  Snc.  London,  vol.  3,  1847, pp.  201-288. 


10  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

but  in  his  Geology  of  North  America,  1858,  he  claims  that  the  Richmond 
coal  basin  is  of  the  age  of  the  Keuper  or  Upper  Trias,  although  he  accepts 
the  view  of  Professor  Emmons,  that  the  coal  series  of  Deep  and  Dan 
Rivers,  North  Carolina,  is  at  base  Permian.  On  page  IG  of  the  Geology  of 
North  America,  Prof  J.  Marcou  publishes  a  letter  of  Prof  Oswald  Heer,  of 
Zurich,  written  July  25,  1857,  in  which  he  reviews  the  fossil  flora  of  the 
Richmond  and  North  Carolina  coal  basins,  and  regards  it  as  contempo- 
raneous with  that  of  the  Keuper. 

In  October,  1857,  Sir  Cliarles  L5-ell,  writing  to  Professor  Marcou  (loc. 
cit.)  quotes  a  note  from  Mr.  Bunbury  upon  this  subject,  in  which,  referring  to 
his  paper  on  the  Riclmiond  plants^  where  he  had  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  formation  containing  them  might  belong  to  the  Jurassic  or  to  tlie  Tri- 
assic  period,  and  that  it  might,  with  almost  equal  plausibility,  be  referred  to 
either,  he  says:  "At  the  time  I  wrote  this  the  Basle  and  Baireuth  beds  were 
supposed  to  be  Lias."  Professor  Marcou  comments  on  this  as  follows:  "As 
the  Basle  and  Baireuth  beds  are  now  recognized  by  every  geologist  as 
belonging  to  the  Keuper,  it  will  appear  that  Bunbury  never  intended  to 
put  the  Virginia  coal  field  in  the  true  Jurassic  of  England;  so  that  we  all 
ao-ree  to  regard  the  Red  Sandstone  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  as 
Keuper." 

In  1883  Prof.  W.  M.  Fontaine  published  the  results  of  a  careful  study 
made  by  himself  of  the  flora  of  the  coal  series  of  Virginia  in  a  monograph 
issued  by  the  U.S.  Geological  Survey,  with  the  title  "Contributions  to  the 
Knowledge  of  the  Older  Mesozoic  Flora  of  Virginia."  In  this  monogra])h 
(pp.  122,  123)  he  enumerates  thirty-nine  well-defined  species  of  plants,  of 
which  23  per  cent,  are  peculiar  to  North  Carolina,  41  per  cent,  are  found  in 
Virginia,  20  per  cent,  are  allied  to  or  identical  with  Jurassic  forms  while 
the  number  of  species  identical  with  or  allied  to  Rhsetic  plants  amounts  to 

38  per  cent.;  or,  as  he  sajs:^ 

Assuming  with  Feistmantel  that  the  Eivjinahal  group  of  India  is  of  Liassic  age, 
we  have  two  species  identical  witli  and  six  nearly  allied  to  Jurassic  plants,  while 
seven  species  are  identical  with  and  eight  closely  allied  to  Rhajtic  plants. 

This  shows  that  the  plant-beai'ing  strata  of  Virginia  and  North  Caro- 
lina maybe  safely  considered  equivalent  in  age  to  the  Rhfetic  beds  of  Ger- 

'  Qnar.  Jour.  Geol.  Soc.  London,  vol.  3,  1847,  p.  288.  =0p.  cit.,  p.  123. 


GEOLOGICAL  SKETCH.  11 

many  ;  a  result  confirming  and  further  illustrating  the  conclusions  of  Heer, 
Marcou,  Bunbury,  and  others,  who  have  regarded  the  RichmoFid  coal  series 
as  Upper  Trias.  The  Rhsetic,  formerly  included  in  the  Keuper,  is  known  to 
form  beds  of  passage  between  the  Trias  and  the  Lias,  though  with  a  still 
prevailing  Triassic  facies. 

We  are  not  yet  in  possession  of  the  material  necessary  for  making  an 
exact  comparison  between  the  rocks  of  the  southern  Triassic  areas  and  those 
of  New  Jersey  and  Connecticut.  No  considerable  collection  of  the  fossil 
fishes  of  the  Richmond  and  North  Carolina  basins  has  been  made,  thousrh 
they  are  known  to  abound  there  ;  but  the  few  fish  remains  from  North 
Carolina  and  Virginia  which  have  come  under  my  observation  show  that 
there  are  marked  differences  between  the  faunas  of  the  northern  and  south- 
ern Triassic  basins.  On  the  other  hand,  the  plants  thus  far  collected  in 
New  Jersey  and  Connecticut  are  few — since  they  are  not  common  in  any 
locality  yet  known — while  plants  are  by  far  the  most  striking  and  abun- 
dant fossils  in  the  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  basins.  They  have  been 
gathered  by  many  collectors,  and  have  been  now  studied  by  Professor  Fon- 
taine and  described  in  the  monograph  referred  to  above.  More  fishes  from 
the  southern  areas  and  more  plants  from  the  northern  must  therefore  be 
collected  before  a  satisfactory  comparison  can  be  made.  So  far  as  they 
throw  light  upon  this  subject,  the  facts  already  gathered  indicate  a  general 
parallelism  between  the  northern  and  southern  areas ;  some  differences, 
but  many  points  of  identity  being  discernible.  For  example,  the  Richmond 
coal  basin  has  furnished  to  me  one  species  of  Catoptenis  (C.  gracilis  J  which 
is  common  in  New  Jersey,  but  by  far  the  most  abu  ndant  fish  of  the  Rich- 
mond basin  is  Dictyoi)yc]e  macrura  Egt.,  which  has  not  yet  been  found  in 
tlie  northern  basins.  Traces  of  tv.'o  other  genera  and  species  unknown  at 
the  North  have  been  obtained  from  Richmond.  It  is  probable  that  the 
large  fish  of  which  a  fragment  is  figured  by  Sir  Philip  Egerton,^  and  called 
a  Tetragonolepis,  is  an  Ischypterus,  identical  with  the  large  and  broad  spe- 
cies (/.  ovatus)  which  occurs  at  Sunderland  and  Boonton.  Whether  the 
other  species  of  fishes  belonging  to  the  genera  Catopter  vs,  Isclyptenis,  Bip- 
Inrus,  etc.,  found  in  the  northern  basins,  will  be  obtained  at  the  South  wlien 

'  Quart.  Jour.  Geol.  Soc.  London,  vol.   3, 1S47,  pi.  9. 


12  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

they  shall  be  carefully  sought  for,  remains  to  be  seen.  A  conclusive  com- 
parison cannot  be  made,  however,  till  a  thorough  search  for  fishes  is  insti- 
tuted in  the  southern  basins ;  for,  while  we  do  not  alwaj'S  find  the  things 
we  seek,  we  make  full  collections  of  those  fossils  only  which  are  the  objects 
of  special  search. 

A  comparison  of  the  fossil  plants  of  the  northei'n  and  southern  basins 
is  somewhat  more  satisfactory,  and  yet  the  limited  number  of  species  obtained 
at  the  North  leaves  the  result  of  such  comparison  far  from  conclusive.  Pro- 
fessor Fontaine,  as  has  been  mentioned,  has  enumerated  about  forty  species 
of  plants  obtained  from  the  Riclnnond  and  Nortli  Carolina  coal  basins. 
Among  these  perliaps  the  most  abundant  is  the  large  monophyllous  fern 
Tceniopteris  viagnifolia  of  Rogers,  but  this  has  not  yet  been  found  anywhere 
at  the  North,  nor  has  any  other  similar  fern  been  met  with  there.  Another 
common  plant  at  Richmond  is  Scliizoneiira  lilanicostata  {Calamites  planicos- 
tatiis  of  Rogers),  and  this  I  have  found  at  Milford,  N.  J.;  Durham,  Conn  ; 
and  Sunderland,  Mass.  An  allied  plant  is  JEqiiisetum  Rocjersi,  Schimper 
(Eqiiiscttim  coluntnare  of  Brongniart  and  Rogers).  Professor  Funtaine  says:^ 
"This  plant  is  one  of  the  most  characteristic  fossils  of  the  Richmond  coal 
field,  and  lias  a  wide  vertical  and  horizontal  range."  He  further  says  that 
it  is  almost  everywhere  found  with  Macroteniopteris  magnifoUa,  and  that  they 
form  the  only  fossil  plants  of  some  localities.  This  plant  is  rare  at  the  North, 
as  I  have  obtained  it  from  but  one  locality — Milford,  N.  J.  Another  common 
plant  at  Richmond  is  a  fern,  belonging  to  the  genus  Clathropteris,  which 
Fontaine"  identifies  with  G.plaUjphjUa  var.  expansa  Saporta,  and  with  ('.  rcc- 
tiusculus  of  Edward  Hitchcock,  jr.,  described  in  the  American  Journal  of 
Science  for  July,  1855.  This  plant  occurs  rather  abundantly  at  Durham, 
Conn.,  and  at  East  Hampton,  Mass.  We  find  also  at  the  foi-mer  place  a 
delicate  and  slender  Baicra,  which  may  not  be  distinct  from  tha.t  obtained  by 
Ennnons  in  North  Carolina  and  figured  by  him  in  his  American  Geology, 
Part  6,  page  133.  Another  common  plant  at  Durham  has  a  simple  flattened 
stem  from  half  an  inch  to  an  inch  in  width  and  sometimes  a  foot  or  more  in 
length.  This  is  apparently  identical  with  that  figured  by  Emmons,^  and 
named  by  Fontaine  Bamhiisiiim  CaroUiicnsc. 

'  Mou.  cited,  p.  12.  =  Ibid  ,  p   54.  ^  Auieiicau  Geology,  ixut  vi,  i>.  132. 


GEOLOGICAL  SKETCH.  13 

Among  the  conifers  apparently  two  or  three  are  common  to  the  northern 
and  southern  Triassic  basins.  Pallssya  Braunil,  Endl.,  occurs  in  North  Car- 
oUna,  and  a  fine  specimen  of  it  is  figured  by  Fontaine  on  Plate  L  of  his 
.monograph.  I  have  a  still  finer  specimen  from  the  quarries  at  Newark, 
N.  J.,  where  it  seems  to  be  common;  and,  although  the  coarse  sandstone 
has  not  often  preserved  the  foliage,  what  I  suppose  to  be  portions  of  its 
trunks  and  branches  are  very  numerous. 

The  plant  which  Fontaine  considers  identical  with  Cheirolejns  Mi'msteri, 
Schimper,  is  found  at  Durham  and  many  other  places  in  Connecticut,  as 
well  as  in  Massachusetts  and  New  Jersey.  As  I  have  shown  in  my  notes 
on  the  Triassic  plants,  this  is  probably  not  a  Cheirolepis,  but  a  Pachi/phi/Uum; 
but  there  is  no  question  of  its  occurrence  in  all  the  northern  and  southern 
basins. 

On  the  other  hand,  among  the  small  number  of  plants  froni  the  Trias  of 
New  Jersey  and  Connecticut  are  two  or  three  which  have  not  yet  been  found 
at  the  South.  Of  these  the  most  important  is  a  species  of  Otozamites,  which 
is  rather  common  at  Durham,  but  not  yet  found  elsewhere.  Its  fronds-  are 
one' to  two  feet  in  length  by  one  to  three  inches  wide.  Wlien  it  was  first 
found,  many  years  ago,  I  was  unable  to  distinguish  it  fr.im  Otosamites  brevi- 
Jolius  Fr.  Braun,  one  of  the  most  characteristic  plants  of  the  Rhaetic  beds  of 
Bamberg,  Baireuth,  and  other  places.  Recently  Count  Saporta  has  sep- 
arated the  larger  fronds  with  narrow  pointed  pinnules  from  the  smaller 
with  shorter  rounded  pinnules  (all  of  which  were  formerly  attributed  to  0. 
brevifolms),  and  has  made  them  the  type  of  his  species  Olozamites  latior} 
These  correspond  precisely  in  size,  form,  and  nervation  with  our  Durham 
plant,  and  we  may  therefore  accept  this  as  another  species  common  to  our 
Triassic  beds  and  the  Rhsetic  of  Germany  and  France,  contributing  an  ad- 
ditional fact  to  the  already  sufficient  proof  of  the  parallelism  that  has  been 
before  reported. 

The  relations  of  the  Triassic  beds  of  the  Atlantic  coast  to  those  of  the  in- 
terior and  the  western  margin  of  the  continent  can  hardly  be  established 
without  larger  collections  of  fossils  from  western  localities.  The  Triassic 
strata  underlying  the  Indian  Territory,  northern  Texas,  New  Mexico,  etc., 

1  Pal^ontologie  fraiieaise,  Veg6taux,  vol.  2,  p.  130,  Pis.  97,  98.) 


14  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

are  peculiarly  barren  of  fossils.  They  are  generall}^  reddish  sandstones,  con- 
glomerates, and  shales  below,  with  a  series  of  highly  colored  indurated  marls 
or  fine-grained  calcareous  sandstones  above,  frequently  charged  with  salt 
and  sometimes  including  extensive  sheets  of  gypsum.  The  sandstones  are 
also  conspicuously  cross-bedded,  and  it  is  evident  that  the  whole  series  was 
deposited  in  a  shallow  sea,  swept  by  strong  currents  or  high  tides,  and  that 
bays,  estuaries,  or  lagoons  were  formed  at  various  times,  in  which  the  water 
was  evaporated  and  its  salt  and  gypsum  were  precipitated.  These  condi- 
tions were  unfavorable  to  the  presence  of  animal  or  vegetable  life :  as  con- 
sequences, we  rarely  find  any  fossils  in  the  beds,  and  the  iron  they  contain 
is  peroxidized,  imparting  to  them  their  characteristic  red  color.  This  great 
sheet  of  Triassic  rocks  originally  extended  to  the  Wasatch  Mountains,  which 
formed  the  western  shore  of  the  sea  in  which  they  were  deposited. 

Passing  over  hundreds  of  miles  where  these  Triassic  rocks  were  just 
beneath  the  surface  and  freely  exposed  in  cliffs  and  stream  beds,  I  have 
sought  for  months  in  vain  to  find  in  them  any  traces  of  life ;  yet  in  two 
localities  which  I  visited  I  was  more  successful,  and  from  a  third  I  have 
received  a  large  collection  of  fossil  plants.  These  localities  are  San  Jos^, 
near  Pecos,  in  New  Mexico,  the  old  copper  mines  above  Abiquiu,  and  Los 
Bronces,  on  the  Yaki  River,  in  Sonora.  At  the  first  locality  are  found  Walcliia 
and  Ccdainites  below,  which  mean  Permian,  and  in  softer  beds  of  sandstone 
above — doubtless  Triassic — impressions  of  fern  fronds  too  indistinct  for  de- 
termination. 

In  the  roof  shales  of  the  old  copper  mines  near  Abiquiu  plants  are 
abundant,  but  the  number  of  species  is  small.  Of  these  the  most  common 
and  conspicuous  is  an  Otosamites  with  broad  truncated  pinnules,  which  I 
have  called  0.  Macomhii;  another  cycad  less  common  is  a  Zamites  (Z.  occi- 
dentaUs  Newb.),  while  twigs  and  cones  of  PachyphyUum  are  occasionally 
seen.  At  Los  Bronces  the  number  of  species  is  much  larger,  and  we  find 
among  them  several  which  occur  in  North  Carolina,  and  one  of  those  ob- 
tained from  Abiquiu  {Otozamites  Macomhii).  The  Carolina  species  are  Pe- 
copteris  buUatus  Bunbury  {3fertensides  huUcdus  Fontaine),  Pecopteris  falcatus 
Emmons  (Laccopteris EmmonslFontame),  and  Tceniopteris magmfolia  Rogers. 
These  indicate  a  parallelism  between  the  plant-bearing  beds  of  the  Atlantic 


GEOLOGICAL  SKETCH.  15 

Trias  and  those  of  New  Mexico  and  Sonora,  and  go  far  to  prove  tliat  all 
our  Triassic  rocks  which  have  yet  3nelded  plants  belong  to  the  uppermost 
division  of  the  system. 

In  New  Mexico  there  are  at  least  two  tliousand  feet  of  sandstones  and 
shales  belonging  to  the  Trias  beneath  the  strsxta  whicli  contain  the  fossil  plants 
at  the  copper  mines.  Immediately  above  the  latter  lie  the  sandstones  of 
the  Dakota  group,  the  basal  member  of  the  Cretaceous  system  as  repre- 
sented in  that  region  ;  so  .that  we  have  proof  that  these  plant  beds  form  the 
extreme  upper  part  of  the  Trias.  The  lower  beds  of  sandstone  and  the  con- 
glomerate which  forms  the  base  of  the  series  in  New  Mexico  and  Arizona 
may  represent  the  lower  portions  of  the  Trias  in  the  Old  World,  but  unfor- 
tunately no  fossils  have  yet  been  obtained  from  them. 

Many  writers  upon  the  Triassic  beds  of  the  West  have  called  the  whole 
formation  Jnra-Trias,  either  under  the  impression  that  both  systems  were 
represented  in  the  group,  or  as  a  matter  of  precaution  in  case  this  should 
be  found  to  be  true.  There  seems,  however,  to  be  no  good  reason  for  think- 
ing that  the  series  of  rocks  which  I  have  described  represents  the  Jurassic 
of  Europe.  Another  set  of  beds  overlying  the  Triassic  and  underlying 
the  Dakota  sandstones  occur  in  Utah,  Colorado,  and  Wyoming,  and  are 
proved  by  their  fossils  to  be  Jurassic.  But  these  beds  wedge  out  toward 
the  south,  and  I  have  been  unable  to  find  any  traces  0/  them  south  of  En- 
chanted Springs,  near  the  lower  line  of  Colorado.     They  consist  of — 

(1)  Gray  earthy  limestone  witJi  marine  Jurassic  moUusks,  best  shown  in 
Wyoming  and  Utah. 

(2)  Light  sandy  and  gypsiferous  strata  which  succeed  the  limestone  to- 
ward the  south,  and 

(3)  Alternations  of  reddish  sandstones  and  shales— fresh-water  bed.s,  con- 
taining unios  and  saurian  bones — the  Atlantosaurus  beds  of  Marsh. 

On  this  series  rest  the  Dakota  sandstones,  and  below  it  are  the  red  sand- 
stones and  conglomerates  of  the  Trias. 


F^RT    II. 


FOSSIL  FISHES  OF  THE  TRIASSIC  ROCKS  OF  NEW  JERSEY  AND 
THE  CONNECTICUT  VALLEY.    . 


MON   XIV 2  17 


FOSSIL  FISHES, 


The  fishes  of  our  Triassic  rocks,  though  so  far  as  yet  known  repre- 
senting but  six  genera  and  about  twenty-five  species,  are  locally  very 
numerous  and  are  found  in  many  localities.  They  were  among  the  first 
fossils  which  attracted  the  attention  of  American  geologists,  and  were  re- 
ferred to  by  Mitchill,  De  Kay,  and  Hitchcock  half  a  century  ago.  Some 
imperfect  specimens,  obtained  in  the  Connecticut  Valley,  near  Amherst, 
were  sent  by  the  latter  to  Professor  Agassiz  when  he  was  publishing  liis 
great  work  on  fossil  fishes.  He  figured  and  described  two  species,  one  of 
which  he  referred  to  the  genus  Palcconiscus  and  named  P.  fuUus;  the  other 
he  considered  a  Eurynotus  and  called  it  E.  tenidceps.  About  this  time  Mr. 
W.  C.  Redfield,  of  New  York,  began  the  study  of  these  fishes.  In  con- 
nection with  his  son,  Mr.  J.  H.  Redfield,  he  published  many  notices  of  them 
during  the  succeeding  twenty  years.  The  first  formal  description  of  any 
of  them  was  in  a  paper  read  by  Mr.  J.  H.  Redfield  before  the  Lyceum  of 
Natural  History  of  New  York,  December  12,  1836,  and  subsequently  pub- 
blished.^  It  contains  figures  and  descriptions  of  two  species,  Catopterus 
gracilis  and  Pahwniscus  latus,  the  former  being  made  the  type  of  a  new 
genus.  In  1841  Mr.  W.  C.  Redfield  read  before  the  Yale  Natural  History 
Society  a  paper  entitled  "Short  Notices  of  American  Fossil  Fishes."  This 
contains  descriptions  of  five  species  of  Paloeoniscus,  three  of  which  were  then 
for  the  first  time  characterized,  viz:  P.  fiiltvs  Ag.,  P.  latus  J.  H.  R.,  P. 
macropterus  W.  C.  R ,  P.  Agassisii  W.  C.  R,  and  P.  ovatus  W.  C  R. ;  also, 

'Auiials  Lyceum  Nat.  Hist.  N.  Y.,  pt.  7,  vol.  4,  1848,  i^-  35. 

19 


20  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

four  species  of  Catopterus  were  described,  viz :   C.  f/raciUs  J.  H.  R.,  C,  ma- 
cruriis  W.  C.  R,  G.  cmgulUiformis  W.  C.  R.,  and  C.  panntlm  W.  C.  R.^ 

Ill  1854  Mr.  J.  H.  Redfield  read  to  the  Association  of  American 
Geologists  and  Naturalists  a  paper  entitled  "A  Catalogue  of  tlie  Fossil 
Fishes  of  the  United  States  as  far  as  Known,  witli  Descriptions  of  Those 
Found  in  the  New  Red  Sandstone."  In  this  paper  four  species  of  Catopterus 
and  nine  species  of  Pakeoniscus  were  enumerated;  of  the  latter  four,  viz, 
P.  clupeiformis,  P.  rodratus,  P.  tenuis,  and  P.  parvus,  had  not  been  before  de- 
scribed. This  report  has  never  been  published,  because,  as  I  was  informed 
by  Mr.  W.  C.  Redfield,  it  was  agreed  between  Professor  Agassiz  and  himself 
that  the  whole  subject  should  be  reviewed  in  a  joint  monograph.  Unfortu- 
nately this  was  not  done,  and  the  death  of  Mr.  Redfield  in  1857  prevented 
further  publication  of  the  large  amount  of  valuable  information  which  he 
had  acquired  on  this  subject. 

In  1847  Sir  Charles  Lyell  published  a  paper"  on  the  Coal  Field  of 
Eastern  Virginia,  in  which  he  gave  some  notes  on  the  fossil  fishes  he  ob- 
tained there,  with  two  beautiful  plates,  drawn  by  Joseph  Dinkel.  These 
notes  also  include  the  results  of  an  examination  of  these  fishes  by  Sir  Philip 
Egerton,  Avho  reported  (1)  that  the  fish  described  by  W.  C.  Redfield  under 
the  name  of  Catopterus  macrurus  should  be  considered  the  representative  of 
a  new  genus  "because  it  was  homocercal,"  and  he  called  it  Dktijopyge  ;  (2) 
that  the  fishes  from  the  American  Trias  referred  by  x\gassiz  and  Redfield  to 
Palcconiscus  were  generically  distinct,  and  he  named  the  new  genus  whicli 
he  created  to  receive  them  Ischjpterus,  because  of  the  great  strength  of  tlie 
fin  rays.  Sir  Philip  Egerton  also  decided  that  some  of  the  specimens  of 
Catopterus  brought  back  by  Sir  Charles  Lyell  were  diff'erent  from  C.  gracilis, 
and  suffsested  the  name  of  C.  Redfieldi  for  one  of  them. 

A  portion  of  the  middle  of  the  body  of  a  large  fish  with  quadrangular 
scales  which  Sir  Charles  Lyell  brought  from  Blackheath,  Va.,  he  referred  to 
the  genus  Tctragonolepis,  but  on  scarcely  satisfactory  grounds. 

Taking  up  the  study  of  the  fishes  of  tlie  Trias  soon  after  coming  to  New 
York  in  186G,  I  had  excavations  made  at  Boonton,  N.  J.,  from  which  many 
hundreds  of  fishes  were  obtained,  in  circumstances  which  apparently  throw 

'Am.  .Jonr.  Sci.,  vol.  41,  1841,  p.  24. 

•Qtr:irt.  .Inr.  Gi'ol.  Sou.  Loiiilou,  vol,  :!,  1847,  p.  2iU. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  21 

some  light  on  the  manner  in  which  they  were  entombed.  Tliis  locahty  is 
near  the  western  margin  of  the  Triassic  area  where  strata  of  shaly  sand- 
stone rest  upon  coarse  conglomerate,  showing  the  different  conditions  which 
prevailed  at  the  same  locality  within  a  limited  interval  of  time.  Certain 
layers  of  the  sliales  are  crowded  with  fishes,  a  slab  a  yard  square  carrying 
sometimes  a  half  dozen  or  more.  Some  of  these  are  dismembered,  consist- 
ing of  a  shapeless  aggregate  of  scales  and  bones,  but  most  are  nearly  per- 
fect; and  the  number  found  at  about  the  same  level,  with  their  perfection 
of  preservation,  seem  to  show  that  tlie  generation  inhabiting  that  portion 
of  the  Triassic  basin  at  a  certain  time  were  somewhat  suddenly  killed  and 
sunk  to  the  bottom,  where  they  were  soon  covered  with  the  accunuilating 
sediment  and  were  thus  preserved.  The  layers  of  the  shale  which  contain 
the  largest  number  of  fishes  are  impregnated  with  bituminous  matter,  burn- 
ino-  for  a  time  when  thrown  into  the  fire,  and  when  struck  with  a  hammer 
giving  off  a  peculiar  odor.  Similar  fish  beds  are  known  to  exist  at  Pomp- 
ton,  Plainfield,  and  beneath  the  trap  of  the  Palisades  above  Hoboken,  and 
it  seems  probable  that  the  great  mortality  which  strewed  the  bottom  of  'the 
basin  at  times  with  dead  fishes  was  the  result  of  some  phase  of  the  volcanic 
action  which  poured  out  the  trap  masses  of  the  Palisades  and  Newark 
Mountains. 

Fishes  seem  to  be  equally  abundant  in  the  Connecticut  River  basin. 
At  Durham,  Conn.,  and  Turner's  Falls,  Mass.,  they  are  particularly  numerous 
and  well  preserved,  while  they  have  also  been  obtained  at  Middletown,  Sud- 
bury, Chicopee,  Amherst,  and  Hadley's  Falls.  Collections  made  at  all  these 
localities  have  been  studied  by  me,  and  among  them  I  have  identified  with 
more  or  less  confidence  about  twenty-five  species.  To  the  list  of  the  species 
of  Catopterus  and  Isclujpterus  enumerated  by  the  Messrs.  Redfield  perhaps 
as  many  more  have  been  added,  and  two  genera  which  they  do  not  seem 
to  have  met  with,  viz,  DipUirus  Newb.  and  Pti/chokpis  Ag.  These  will  be 
found  figured  and  described  in  another  part  of  this  menioir.  In  the  revision 
of  the  group  of  fishes  studied  by  the  Messrs.  Redfield  access  has  been 
had  to  the  specimens  left  by  Mr.  W.  C.  Redfield,  most  of  which  were  do- 
nated to  the  Peabody  Museum  at  Yale  College.  The  collection  contains 
many  types  of  the  species  described  by  the  Messrs.  Redfield,  but  unfortu- 


22  TRIASSK!  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

nately  not  fully  labeled.  It  is  also  to  be  regretted  that  some  of  their  types 
and  many  specimens  which  they  had  studied  and  labeled  perished  in  the 
destruction  by  fire  of  the  geological  collection  belonging  to  the  New  York 
Lyceum  of  Natural  History. 

I  erive  below  a  list  of  the  fishes  of  the  North  American  Trias  as  far  as 
yet  made  out.  It  probably  includes  nearly  all  the  species  which  lived  in  the 
water  basins  from  which  the  Triassic  strata  were  deposited  in  New  Jersey 
and  the  Connecticut  Valley,  but  in  the  southern  extension  of  the  Triassic 
belt  some  new  things  are  sure  yet  to  be  found.  No  one  has  given  special 
attention  to  the  fishes  of  the  Richmond  coal  basin  or  those  of  North  Caro- 
lina, but  the  few  specimens  which  have  been  incidentally  collected  indicate 
considerable  differences  between  the  fishfixuna  of  this  region  and  that  which 
I  have  studied  farther  north.  By  far  the  most  common  fish  in  the  Rich- 
mond basin  is  Bidyopyge  macrura  Egt.  {Cat02)terus  macrurus  W.  C.  R.), 
which  I  have  not  found  elsewhere.  With  this  are  associated  fragments  of 
some  other  genera  and  species  which  have  not  yet  been  described.  One  of 
these  is  apparently  a  Bictyopjge  considerably  larger  than  D.  macrura,  and 
distinguished  from  it  by  having  the  flattened  fin  rays  ornamented  with  raised 
lines.  One  new  genus  of  which  I  have  seen  fragments  is  strongly  marked 
by  its  relatively  large,  rounded,  and  ornamented  opercula. 

In  the  Triassic  strata  of  the  Far  West  very  few  fish  remains  have  been 
found.  Mr.  E.  E.  Howell  obtained  from  the  Trias  in  southeastern  Utah 
some  detached  ganoid  scales,  and  recently  Mr.  R.  C.  Hills  found  at  San 
Miguel,  in  southwestern  Colorado,  near  the  middle  of  the  Triassic  series  of 
that  region,  several  specimens  of  a  Catopterus  hardly  distinguishable  from 
C.  gracilis,  but  too  imperfectly  preserved  for  accurate  determination.  Prob- 
ably when  the  calcareous  beds  which  represent  the  Trias  in  Idaho  shall  be 
more  carefully  examined  they  will  be  found  to  contain  the  remains  of  fishes 
which  may  be  expected  to  resemble  those  of  the  Muschelkalk  of  Europe. 


FOSSIL  FISHES. 


23 


LIST  OF  TRIASSIC   FISHES. 


Diplurus  longicaudaliis  Newb. 
Ptycholepis  Marshii  Newb. 
Dictyopyge  macrura  Egt. 
Acentrophorus  Chicopensis,  n.  sp. 
Catopterus  Reljieldi  Hgt. 

gracilis  W.  C.  R. 

anguiUiformis  W.  C.  E. 

parvulus  W.  C.  R. 

minor,  u.  sp. 

ornatus,  n.  sp. 
Ischypterus  fultns  Ag.  sp. 

macroptertisW.  C  R. 

ovatus  W.  0.  R. 

Aqassizii  W.  C.  R, 


Ischypterus  latus  J.  H.  R. 

micropterus,  n.  sp. 
alatus,  n.  sp. 
modestus,  n.  sp. 
parvus  W.  C.  R. 
Marsha  W.  C.  R. 
minutus,  n.  sp. 
Braunii,  n.  sp. 
robustus,  n.  sp. 
tenuiceps  Ag. 
elegans,  n.  sp. 
lenticularis,  n.  sp. 
lineatus,  n.  sp. 
(/igias,  n.  fsp. 


DESCRIPTIONS  OF  GENERA  AND  SPECIES. 

SUBCLASS  GANOIDEI. 
ORDER  LEPIDOSTEID^^. 

FAMILY  LEPIDOTID^. 

Genus  ISCHYPTERUS  Egerton. 

Under  the  names  of  Pakeoniscus  fultus  and  Eiirynofiis  tenuiceps  two 
species  of  this  genus  wei'e  described  by  Agassiz.^  Previous  to  that  time  a 
specimen  had  been  sent  from  Massachusetts  to  M.  Alexandre  Brongniart,  at 
Paris;  this  was  examined  by  De  Blainville,  and  was  referred  to  his  genus 
Pakeofhrissum,  for  which  Pakeoniscus  was  afterwards  substituted.  All  these 
specimens  lacked  important  parts,  were  distorted  and  imperfectly  preserved; 
hence  it  is  perhaps  not  surprising  that  their  anatomical  structure  was  misun- 
derstood, and  they  were  included  in  genera  to  which  they  do  not  belong. 
Eurynotus  is  a  palaeoniscoid  genus,  restricted  to  the  Lower  Carbonifei  ous 
strata,  having  a  different  arrangement  of  the  head  plates,  a  high,  broad 
dorsal,  and  a  ver}-  heterocercal  tail;  features  in  which  it  differs  essentially 
from  the  fishes  now  under  consideration.  Palceoniscus  also  has  been  clearly 
shown  by  Dr.  R.  H.  Traquair,  in  his  admirable  studies  of  the  family,^  to  be  as 
distinctly  separated  from  them.  lu'  1841  Mr.  W.  C.  Redfield  pubhshed  an 
article  with  the  title  "  Short  Notices  of  American  Fossil  Fishes."^  In  this 
paper  he  describes  five  species  of  Pakeoniscus^  accepting  the  classification 
of  Agassiz,  who  had  referred  them  to  this  genus.     These  were  P.  fultus  Ag., 

'Poissons  Fossiles  (vol.  %,  p.  43,  pi.  8,  flgs.  4,  5;  p.  159,  pi.  14c,  figs.  4,  .''),  1833-1843.) 
=  Quart.  Jour.  Geol.  Soc, London,  vol.  33,  1877,  pp.  548-578,  and  Trans.  Eoy.  Soc,  Edinburgh,  vol. 
29,  pp.  343-391. 

Am.  Jour.  Sci.,  vol.  41, 1841,  p.  24. 

•21 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  25 

P.  latus  J.  H.  R  ,  P.  macropterus  W.  C.  R ,  P.  Agassizii  W  C.  R.,  and  P.  ovatus 
\Y.  C.  R.  Mr,  Redfield  in  this  article  pointed  out  some  of  the  peculiarities  of 
this  group  of  fishes,  and  sugg'ested  that  they  should  perhaps  be  separated 
fi'om  Pcdceoniscus. 

This  was  subsequently  done  by  Sir  Pliilip  Egerton/  who,  on  account  of 
the  great  strength  of  the  fin  rays,  named  the  genus  which  he  created  to 
receive  them  Ischyptenis.  Unfortunately  no  detailed  description  of  the 
anatomical  chai'acters  of  the  genus  was  given  by  Sir  Philip  Egerton,  as 
he  scarcely  had  sufficient  material  for  the  purpose.  This  is  nuich  to  be 
regretted,  as  with  his  great  knowledge,  if  he  could  have  made  a  careful  study 
of  good  specimens,  he  would  have  been  led  to  discover  and  report  the  true 
relationship  of  the  group.  This  is  plainly  with  Lepidotus  and  its  allies,  and 
not  with  Pakeoniscus,  as  supposed  by  Agassiz ;  an  error  into  which  he  was 
led  by  the  imperfect  preservation  of  the  fishes  he  examined,  none  of  which 
showed  any  details  of  tlie  all-important  structure  of  the  head.  The  head 
was  small,  and  all  the  bones  were  delicate ;  hence  the  almost  universal  de- 
ficiences  in  this  part  of  their  structure  when  fossilized.  Among  the  many 
hundred  specimens  of  Ischyptenis  I  have  passed  in  review  I  have  found  a 
few  in  which  nearly  all  the  details  of  the  bony  structure  were  preserved, 
and  I  am  able  to  describe  this  more  fully  than  has  before  been  possible,  and 
to  deduce  from  it  with  certainty  the  zoological  relations  of  this  group  of  fishes. 
Where  distinctly  visible  the  structure  demonstrates  an  intimate  relationship 
with  Lepidotus,  Dapedius,  s,nd  PJioUdop)horus,  but  most  of  all  with  Semionotus. 
Here  the  affinity  is  so  close,  that  it  is  probable  that  both  Agassiz  and  Sir 
Philip  Egerton  would  have  united  Is'cliypterus  with  that  genus  if  the  material 
at  their  command  had  been  more  abundant  and  better.  In  an  examination 
of  nearly  all  the  specimens  of  Iscliypterus  contained  in  the  museums  of  the 
United  States  and  a  considerable  number  of  individuals  of  Semionotus  I  have 
been  unable  to  detect  any  characters  by  which  they  can  be  distinguished. 
The  outlines,  size,  and  proportions  of  the  body  are  essentially  alike  ;  both  are 
elliptical  or  ovoid,  with  a  relatively  small,  pointed  head,  and  weak,  scarcely 
lobate  tail.  The  positions,  form,  and  structure  of  the  fins  are  so  nearly  alike 
that  the  differences  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  of  more  than  specific  value. 

•  Quart.  Jour.  Geo!.  Soo.  Loudon,  vol.  6, 1850,  p.  8. 


26  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

The  fin  rays  are  few,  broad,  and  undivided  below  in  both ;  the  anteriorrays  are 
characteristically  strong;  the  fulcra  few,  strongs  acute,  and  closely  appressed; 
in  both  a  row  of  large,  sometimes  erect  and  pointed  scales  marks  the  line 
between  the  head  and  the  dorsal  fin.  The  obliquity  of  the  posterior  ex- 
tremity of  the  body  is  about  the  same ;  the  mouth  is  small,  the  mandibles 
and  maxillaries  are  weak,  the  premaxillaries  united  in  a  uniform  arch,  set 
with  an  even  row  of  small,  abruptly  pointed  teeth,  as  are  also  the  max- 
illaries and  mandibles ;  and  the  eye  is  placed  above  the  posterior  margin  of 
the  mouth.  The  divisions  and  the  forms  of  the  head  plates  are  apparently 
the  same,  though  I  have  not  been  able  to  verify  by  personal  examination 
the  descriptions  of  the  head  plates  of  Semionotus  given  by  European  authors. 
I  can  not,  therefore,  assert  that  Semionotus  and  Iscliy])terus  should  be  united. 
I  call  attention,  however,  to  the  close,  general,  and  special  resemblances 
between  them,  and  leave  to  those  who  may  have  better  opportunities  for 
studying  the  structure  of  Semionotus  the  decision  of  the  question.^ 

The  specific  division  of  the  great  group  of  fishes  representing  the 
genus  Ischjpterus  obtained  from  the  Upper  Triassic  rocks  of  New  Jersey 
and  the  Connecticut  Valley  is  a  matter  of  no  little  difficulty.  The  descrip- 
tions given  by  Mr.  AY.  C  Redfield  in  the  article  mentioned  above  are  ex- 
ceedingly brief,  and  in  the  absence  of  the  type  specimens,  which  cannot 
now  be  certainly  identified,  it  often  becomes  a  matter  of  much  doubt  as  to 
what  were  tlie  fishes  to  which  he  applied  these  names.  Only  one  has  yet 
been  figured,  Ischjpterus  latus  J.  H.  R,  and  this  lacks  both  head  and  tail. 
In  examining  the  collection  of  Triassic  fishes  left  by  Mr.  W.  C  Eedfield, 
now  at  Yale  College,  and  to  which  I  have  had  access  through  the  courtesy 
of  Prof  0.  C.  Marsh,  I  found  many  without  labels,  and  those  which  were 
named  were  in  some  cases  so  imperfectly  preserved,  that  it  was  not  easy  to 
use  them  as  guides  in  classifying  the  much  larger  number  of  specimens 
contained  in  the  cabinet  of  Columbia  College. 

'  Since  tbe  above  notes  were  written  two  interesting  papers  have  been  pnblisbecl  ou  the  Triassic  fishes 
of  the  Old  World,  viz,  "On  the  Remains  of  Fishes  from  the  Keuper  of  Warwick,"  by  E.  T.  Newton, 
Rev.  P.  B.  Brodic,  and  Edward  Wilson,  Quar.  Jonr.  Geol.  Soc.,  August,  1887,  and  "On  Two  New  Lepl- 
dotoid  Ganoids  from  the  Early  Mesozoio  Deposits  of  Orange  Freo  State,  Sonth  Africa,"  by  A.  Smith 
Woodward,  Quart.  Jonr.  Geol.  Soc.  London,  May,  1833.  In  both  papers  these  fishe.s  are  described  as 
species  of  SemioiiohM,  which,  if  found  iu  our  Triassic  rocks  would  be  unhesitatingly  referred  to  Ischjtp- 
ieriis. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  27 

On  the  following  pages,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able,  I  have  enumerated 
and  defined  all  the  species  of  the  genus  which  have  come  under  my  obser- 
vation. I  deem  it  necessary  to  say,  however,  that  future  observations  will 
probably  diminish  rather  than  increase  the  number  of  forms  in  which  the 
differences  should  be  given  specific  value.  For  example,  I.  alatus  may 
prove  to  be  only  a  variety  of  /.  lineatiis  and  I.  modestusa  phase  of  /.  elegans; 
but  with  marked  differences  and  without  connecting  links,  so  far  as  yet  ob- 
served, it  has  seemed  to  me  hardly  justifiable  without  further  evidence  of 
identity  to  unite  them  iinder  a  common  name. 

ISCHYPTEEUS    OVATUS  W.  C.  R. 

Pl.'I,  Fig.  1. 

Palceoniscus  ovatits  W.  C.  E.,  Am.  Jour.  Sci.,  vol.  41,  1841,  p.  26. 

The  only  published  description  of  this  species  is  that  cited  above.  It 
reads  as  follows : 

Palceoniscus  ovatus  W.  C.  II.  —  Wide  or  round-shaped  Palaeoniscus.  This  spe- 
cies is  shorter  than  P.  AgassizH,  and  exceeds  all  the  known  American  species  in  the 
comparative  width  or  roundness  of  its  form,  and  is  also  remarkable  for  the  large  size 
of  its  scales.  It  is  of  rare  occurrence,  and,  owing  probably  to  its  great  thickness,  is 
seldom  obtained  in  perfect  form.  This  fossil  also  exhibits  the  spiue-like  erections  of 
the  dorsal  scales  which  have  been  noticed  above. 

Found  at  Westfield  and  Middlefield,  Conn.;  Sunderland,  Mass.,  and  Boonton,  N.  J. 

In  the  manuscript  report  of  Mr.  J.  H.  Redfield  the  following  notes  on 

this  species  appear : 

Fish  ovate ;  head  rather  small  and  narrow ;  body  widening  rapidly  from  the  head 
to  the  dorsal  and  ventral  fins,  expanding  as  far  as  the  ventral  tins,  from  which  point 
the  form  gradually  narrows  to  the  pedicel  of  the  tail.  Scales  large,  anterior  ones  con- 
centrically striate,  those  of  the  dorsal  ridge  pointed  and  elevated  as  in  P.  tenuiceps; 
pectoral  fins  small,  comparatively  slender;  veutrals  small;  dorsal  large,  rays  strong; 
anal  not  well  observed.  This  is  the  broadest  and  most  ovate  species  of  Palceoniscus 
that  is  known,  and  perhaps  ought  to  be  referred  to  a  separate  genus.  In  the  size  of 
the  scales  it  resembles  P.  AgassizH,  but  its  form  will  readily  distinguish  it. 

In  the  collections  made  at  Turner's  Falls,  Mass.,  and  Boonton,  N.  J.,  I 
find  a  large  species  of  IscJiypterus,  which  agrees  very  well  with  the  descrip- 
tions given  above.  The  fish  reaches  a  length  of  from  ten  to  twelve  inches, 
is  ovoid  in  form,  with  a  breadth  at  the  dorsal  fin  of  from  four  to  five  inches ; 


28  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

all  tlie  fins  are  quite  strong,  and  the  scales  are  large,  broad,  and  thick.  The 
concentric  lines  upon  their  borders,  mentioned  by  Mr.  J.  II.  Redfield,  are 
not  peculiar  to  this  species,  but  are  more  or  less  distinctly  visible  in  all  the 
members  of  the  genus  in  certain  states  of  preservation,  It  is  most  notice- 
able where  the  scales  are  partially  decomposed  and  where  tliey  were  of 
considerable  thickness.  In  outline  the  fishes  of  this  species  resemble  some 
individuals  of  Ischjpicrus  tenuiceps,  but  they  are  considerably  larger,  the 
scales  are  also  relatively  larger  and  more  quadrate ;  the  arch  of  the  back 
is  usually  regular,  and  the  outline  is  comparatively  smooth,  never  showing 
the  extreme  development  of  the  dorsal  scales  which  is  so  conspicuous  a  feat- 
xire  in  the  older  individuals  of  I.  tenuiceps. 

Judging  from  some  of  the  specimens  obtained  from  Turner's  Falls,  I 
am  inclined  to  think  that  this  is  the  fish  which  is  figured  by  Sir  Charles 
Lyell  in  his  paper  on  the  Virginian  coal  field  and  referred  to  by  Sir  Philip 
Egerton  as  a  species  of  Tetragonolepis.  In  that  specimen  nothing  is  shown 
but  a  portion  of  the  side  near  the  head,  without  tail  or  fins.  If  the  fins 
had  been  present  they  would  probably  have  shown  the  great  development 
of  the  fulcra,  which  is  characteristic  of  Ischjpterm  and  wanting  in  Tetrago- 
iiolepis.  This  I  infer  from  the  facts  that  no  other  traces  of  the  latter  genus 
liave  been  found  in  the  Triassic  rocks  of  North  America,  and  the  scales  on 
the  sides  of  the  large  and  broad  species  of  IscJiyptcrus  could  hardly  be  dis- 
tinguished from  those  of  a  corresponding  part  of  the  body  in  Tetragonolepis. 
With  precisely  similar  scales,  however,  we  have  in  several  instances  the 
characteristic  fins  of  Ischgpterus.  No  such  specimens  were  contained  in 
tlie  collections  made  by  Sir  Charles  Lyell  in  America,  and  the  inference  of 
Sir  Philip  Egerton  was  therefore  a  natural  one,  though  probably  erroneous. 

ISCHYPTERUS    MaRSHII    AV.  C.  R. 

PI.  II,  Fig.  1. 

Fishes  twelve  inches  or  more  in  length  by  three  or  four  inches  in  breadth ; 
body  fusiform  in  outline;  head  conical,  obtuse,  contained  four  and  one-half 
times  in  the  entire  length;  fins  strong  but  relatively  short;  anterior  base  of 
dorsal  midway  between  muzzle  and  tip  of  tail ;  fulcra  strong  and  short ;  rays 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  29 

eight  (?)  ;  caudal  fin  strongly  forked,  three  inches  wide  in  fish  twelve  inches 
long,  uns^anmetrical,  upper  lobe  longest ;  scales  universally  large  and  thick; 
those  of  dorsal  line  less  strongly  spined  than  in  other  large  species  of  the 
genus;  boat-shaped  scale  covering  anterior  base  of  dorsal  fin  relatively  small, 
rounded  before,  pointed  behind,  not  notched ;  rows  of  scales  on  sides  more 
oblique  than  in  other  large  species ;  those  on  the  middle  and  anterior 
portions  of  the  body  square  or  oblong,  slightly  higher  than  broad. 

This  large  and  fine  species  was  named  by  W.  C  Redfield,  but  was  never 
described.  It  is  referred  to  in  his  paper,^  and  I  find  a  specimen  from  Sun- 
derland, Mass.,  bearing  this  name  in  the  Redfield  collection  at  Yale  College- 
In  pursuance  of  my  plan  to  secure  to  W.  C.  Redfield  all  the  fruit  of  his  labor 
in  this  field  I  have  adopted  it,  and  now  supplement  the  name  with  a  detailed 
description. 

So  far  as  known  this  species  only  occurs  at  Sunderland,  Mass.,  where 
a  number  of  fine  specimens  have  been  procured,  one  of  the  best  of  which 
may  be  seen  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York,  to 
which  institution,  with  many  other  fossil  fishes,  it  was  presented  by  the  late 
Robert  L.  Stuart.  This,  like  a  number  of  others  whicli  I  liave  seen,  has 
a  length  of  about  twelve  inches,  but  the  species  probably  attained  somewhat 
greater  dimensions.  The  body  is  broadly  or  more  narrowly  fusiform,  the 
widest  portion  being  midway  between  the  dorsal  fin  and  occiput.  In  general 
form  it  resembles  Ischijpterus  Agassizii,  but  attains  greater  dimensions  and 
may  be  distinguished  at  a  glance  by  the  larger  size  of  its  scales  and  the  more 
oblique  position  of  the  rows  on  the  sides 

In  general  aspect  this  fish  has  much  resemblance  to  some  species  of. 
Lepidotus,  all  of  which  are  characterized  by  their  relatively  large  and  thick 
scales.  The  resemblance  of  Ischjpterus  to  Lepklotus  has  been  referred  to, 
and  it  is  evident  that  they  are  closely  allied,  but  as  a  whole  the  species  of 
the  former  genus  are  smaller  and  are  distinguished  by  the  more  salient  row 
of  sjDiny  scales  along  the  dorsal  line,  and  by  a  greater  prolongation  of  the 
upper  lobe  of  the  tail. 

'Proc.  Am.  Assoc.  Adv,  Sci.,  AIb;iiiy  mcotiug,  1856;  jit.  2,  j).  18S, 


30  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  TLANfS. 

IscnYPTEEUS  Agassizii  W.  C.  K 

PI.  Ill,  Fig.  1. 

Palmonisciis  Agassizii  W.  0.  R.,  Am.  Jour.  Sci.,  vol.  41,  1341,  p.  26. 

The  first  notice  of  this  species  was  given  by  W.  C.  Eedfield  in  the 

article  cited  above.     The  description  vv^hich  he  there  published  is  as  follows: 

Its  length  in  the  specimens  hitherto  obtained  varies  from  seven  and  one-half  to 
ten  inches,  and  its  width  from  three  to  four  inches.  The  tins,  with  their  armatures  and 
insertions,  are  also  of  more  remarkable  thickness  than  in  the  species  alreadj-  noticed. 
The  large  scales  or  plates  which  belong  to  the  anterior  portion  of  the  dorsal  line  are 
commonly  found  doubled  together  at  their  lateral  edges  by  the  incumbent  pressure, 
which  gives  them  the  appearance  of  short  spines  or  flattened  rays ;  and  hence  these  are 
sometimes  mistaken  for  an  anterior  comb-like  dorsal. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Redfield,  in  the  manuscript  report  to  which  reference  has 

been  so  frequently  made,  adds  the  following  notes  upon  this  species : 

Head  narrow  and  pointed,  scales  large  and  smooth,  sometimes  with  faint  concen- 
tric striiTe;  those  of  the  anterior  portion  of  the  dorsal  ridge  very  much  elongated, 
strong  and  pointed,  and  apparently  erectile;  when  in  an  erect  position  much  resembling 
rays,  and  giving  the  appearance  of  a  comb-like  dorsal  flu;  back  arched,  but  not  so 
abruptly  as  in  P.  tenuiceps.  The  widest  portion  of  the  fish  is  found  just  anterior  to  the 
ventral  fin;  pectoral  fin  moderate;  anterio.r  raylets  rather  short;  primary  rays  six  or 
eight;  ventral  fins  small,  anterior  raylets  about  ten  ;  primary  rays  about  five  or  six; 
dorsal  fins  large,  triangular,  preceded  by  erect,  pointed  scales ;  anterior  raylets  very 
long,  twelve  or  more  in  number ;  primary  eight  to  ten ;  anal  fin  large,  but  not  so  much 
elongated  as  in  P.  tenuiceps  or  P.fuUus;  antei'ior  raylets  very  strong,  about  twelve  in 
number,  primary  rays  six  to  eight ;  tail  forked,  lobes  acute,  anterior  raylets  rather 
stout,  rays  of  lower  lobe  much  stouter  than  those  of  upper ;  length,  seven  to  ten  inches ; 
breadth,  three  to  three  and  one-half  inches.  Occurs  at  Sunderland,  Mass  ,  Westfleld 
and  Middlefleld,  Conn.,  Pompton  and  Boouton,  K  J. 

Among  the  fishes  obtained  at  Boonton,  N.  J.,  are  a  dozen  or  more  of 
unusually  large  size,  and  manifestly  distinct  from  the  many  small  fishes 
with  which  they  are  associated.  These  I  have  supposed  to  be  the  fishes  to 
which  W.  C.  Redfield  gave  the  above  name,  and  indeed  there  are  no  others 
found  at  that  locality  to  which  his  description  is  at  all  applicable. 

These  fishes  are  from  ten  to  twelve  inches  in  length  and  from  three  to 
three  and  a  half  inches  wide.  The  head  is  conical  and  pointed,  and  in  an 
individual  twelve  inches  long  it  has  a  length  of  three  inches  ;  the  back  is  uni- 
formly and  rather  strongly  arclied  anterior  to  the  dorsal  fin  ;  the  roAV  of  dorsal 
scales  is  .strong,  though  usually  depressed,  and  when  erected  would  present 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  31 

the  appearance  of  a  comb-like  crest  described  by  W.  C  Redfield.  This  row 
of  scales  is,  however,  less  strongly  developed  than  in  Ischyptenis  tenuiceps, 
and  the  arch  of  the  back  does  not  show  the  hump  which  is  so  characteristic 
of  that  species ;  the  fins  are  very  strong ;  the  fulcra  of  the  dorsal  and  anal 
fins  unusually  broad  and  long,  forming  arches  nearly  half  an  inch  wide  at 
base,  curving  gracefully  backward  to  a  point ;  the  anal  fin  when  appressed 
reaches  quite  to  the  base  of  tlie  caudal ;  the  tail  when  expanded  is  three 
inches  wide  at  its  extremity ;  the  scales  of  the  sides  are  large  and  thick, 
those  near  the  head  square  or  oblong. 

I  have  seen  no  such  fishes  as  these  anywhere  except  at  Boonton.  At 
Durham  we  find  a  species  of  Ischyjitenis  of  about  the  same  size,  but  con- 
siderably broader — the  mature  form  of  Ischypterus  micropterus  N.  At  Sun- 
derland occurs  another  species  (Z  Marsliii)  which  in  form  and  general  aspect 
resembles  those  under  consideration,  but  it  is  narrower,  with  less  strong 
dorsal  and  anal  fins,  with  thicker  and  relatively  broader  scales,  which  form 
more  oblique  rows  on  the  sides.  For  these  reasons  I  have  thought  it  wise 
to  regard  it  as  distinct. 


'^fe'- 


Ischypterus  micropterus,  n.  sp. 

PI.  IV,  Figs.  1,  2;  Fl.  XII,  Fig.  2. 

Fishes  of  medium  or  large  size,  five  to  ten  inches  long  by  one  and  a 
half  to  three  and  a  half  inches  wide ;  form  conical,  greatest  breadth  at  pec- 
toral fins,  thence  tapering  uniformly  to  tail;  back  and  abdomen  about 
equally  arched ;  head  conical,  acute,  contained  four  and  a  half  times  in  total 
length,  nearly  horizontal  and  straight  below,  rapidly  sloped  above ;  muzzle 
prolonged,  acute  ;  mouth  very  small ;  maxillary  and  mandible  slender,  teeth 
small,  conical,  acute  ;  cranial  plates  granulated ;  operculum  narrow ;  anterior 
margin  vertical,  posterior  rounded,  supraclavicles  and  clavicles  slender; 
scales  smooth,  polished,  oblong,  twice  as  high  as  long  on  the  sides  near 
the  head,  rhomboidal  on  posterior  portions  of  sides  and  tail ;  scales  of  ante- 
rior dorsal  line  about  fifteen  in  number,  rounded  and  emarginate  at  base, 
abruptly  narrowed  to  smooth  acute  spines  above ;  fins  all  relatively  small 
and  weak;  anterior  base  of  dorsal  midway  between  tip  of  tail  and  extremity 
of  muzzle;  fulcra  eight,  relatively  small ;   fin  rays  eight,  narrow,  delicate; 


32  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

large  scales  of  posterior  dorsal  line  eight,  elliptical  before,  elongate  and 
spiny  behind,  running  into  fulcra  of  upper  margin  of  dorsal,  which  are  ten 
in  number,  eight  beyond  scaled  extremity  of  body,  all  slender  and  rod- 
like ;  caudal  fin  narrow  and  weak,  obhque,  upper  lobe  longest,  rays  fifteen, 
slender;  fulcra  of  lower  margin  fifteen  ;  anal  fin  narrow,  just  reaching  base 
of  caudal,  rays  eight,  fulcra  ten. 

The  most  striking  diagnostic  characters  of  this  species  are  its  pointed 
rostrate,  depressed  muzzle;  conical  narrow  head, horizontal  below;  the  wedge- 
shaped  outline  of  the  body,  which  is  widest  near  the  head ;  the  small  and 
delicate  fins,  and  the  narrow  and  oblique  tail.  The  largest  specimen  which 
I  have  is  ten  and  a  half  inches  long  by  three  and  a  half  inches  wide,  the 
smallest  five  and  a  half  by  one  and  a  half  inches;  but  I  have  seen  one  speci- 
men which  shows  distinctly  all  the  characters  of  the  species,  and  yet  is 
only  about  three  and  a  half  inches  long. 

This  is  the  most  common  species  of  Ischyjiterus  at  Durham,  Conn.,  but 
I  have  not  certainly  identified  it  elsewhere.  S.  W.  Loper  has  good  speci- 
mens in  his  cabinet,  and  has  supplied  a  fine  series  of  diff"erent  ages  to  the 
cabinets  of  Yale  and  Columbia. 

The  figures  given  on  PI.  IV  represent  old  and  half-grown  individ- 
uals ;  that  on  PI.  XII,  Fig.  2,  is  still  younger. 

ISCHYPTERUS     TENUICEPS    Ag.,  sp. 

ri.  V,  Figs.  1,  2,  3;  Fl.  VII,  Fig.  3. 

Uurynotus  teiiuiceps  Ag.,  Poiss.  Foss.  vol.  3,  p.  159,  PJ.  14o,  Figs.  4,  5;  E.  Hitcbcock, 
Geol.  Mass.,  vol.  2,  p.  459,  PI.  29,  Figs.  1,2. 

This  species  has  been  more  fully  illustrated  tlian  any  other  from  the 
American  Trias.  Two  figures  of  it  are  given  by  Agassiz  in  his  Poissons 
Fossiles  (loc.  cit.) ;  two  are  given  by  Professor  Hitchcock  in  his  quarto  Re- 
port on  the  Geology  of  Massachusetts;  one  in  Emmons's  Geological  Report 
of  the  Midland  Counties  of  North  Carolina,  PI.  IX  (reproduced  in  his 
American  Geology,  pt.  6),  a  wood -cut  probably  of  this  species  in  Em- 
mons's Manual  of  Geologj^,  page  188,  and  in  American  Geology,  pt.  6,  i^age 
144;  also,  three  figures  of  it  are  given  on  PI.  IXa  of  the  latter  work.  Of 
these  last  cited  figures  only  one  has  the  normal  form  of  ihc  species,  the 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  33 

others  being  distorted  and  narrowed,  but  the  originals  were  all  from  the 
same  place,  Turner's  Falls,  where  this  is  the  most  abundant  species,  and 
they  show  the  peculiar  erect,  thickened  dorsal  scales,  which  are  not  devel- 
oped to  the  same  degree  in  any  other.  Unfortunately  all  the  figures  of 
I.  teniiiceps  yet  published  are  taken  from  imperfect  specimens.  That  on 
PI.  IX  of  the  American  Geology,  pt.  6,  represents  the  posterior  half  of  the 
body  fairly  well,  but  the  head  is  a  shapeless  mass,  and  the  arch  of  the  back 
is  only  partially  shown. 

As  mentioned  in  the  remarks  on  the  genus  Isclujptems,  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  head  is  so  generally  incomplete  that  we  must  conclude  its  bony 
structure,  was  delicate  and  largely  reenforced  by  cartilage.  Out  of  the  large 
number  of  specimens  which  I  have,  however,  a  few  give  the  outlines  of  the 
head  and  much  of  its  structure  with  considerable  accuracy.  From  these 
we  learn  that  it  was  conical,  rapidly  sloping  from  the  high  nuchal  arch,  and 
from  the  smallness  of  the  mouth,  pointed  at  the  muzzle.  The  general  form 
was  ovate,  in  that  respect  resembling  Ischjptenis  ovatus  W.  C.  R.,  but  the 
species  may  be  distinguished  generally  at  a  glance  by  the  high,  thickened, 
and  often  obtuse  scales  which  crown  the  humped  back.  The  length  of  this 
species  in  mature  individuals  is  eight  inches  and  the  breadth  immediately 
behind  the  head  is  two  and  a  half  to  three  inches.  The  dorsal  scales  are 
often  strangely  thickened  and  distorted  in  the  nuchal  region,  where  they 
are  sometimes  more  than  half  an  inch  long,  clavate  and  blunt.  This  I  was 
at  first  disposed  to  regard  as  the  result  of  pyritous  concretionary  distortion, 
but  I  have  seen  it  in  so  large  a  number  that  I  am  compelled  to  regard  it  as 
a  specific  character.  In  some  cases  the  form  of  every  scale  of  the  row  is 
observable ;  it  is  seen  that  those  immediately  back  of  the  head  are  much 
elongated,  and  the  terminal  spine  is  depressed  backward,  so  that  the  scale  is 
blunt  and  club-shaped.  Possibly  this  is  the  result  of  disease,  but  if  so,  it 
attacked  a  majority  of  individuals.  More  likely  it  is  a  character  developed 
by  age  and  only  fully  shown  by  those  that  were  quite  old  at  the  time  of 
their  entombment.  It  is  possible  also  that  it  is  a  sexual  character ;  but,  by 
whatever  cause  produced,  it  is  a  mark  by  which,  when  present,  the  species 
can  be  immediately  recognized. 

MON  XIV 3 


34  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

Tliis  species  is  found  much  more  abundant  at  Sunderland,  Mass , 
than  elsewhere.  Probably  more  than  half  of  the  individuals  which  have 
been  taken  from  the  Triassic  rocks  there  belong  to  it.  A  few  individuals 
have  been  obtained  from  Durham  and  Boonton  which  were  regarded  by 
W.  C.  Redfield  as  specifically  identical  with  these.  Of  this  there  may  be 
some  doubt,  since  nowhere  else  are  fishes  found  which  have  the  back  so 
highly  arched  immediately  behind  the  head,  and  set  with  the  long,  divergent, 
acute  or  clavate  scales. 

The  figures  given  on  PI.  V  represent  two  old  individuals  and  one  very 
young  one.     Fig.  3  of  PI.  VII  represents  a  mature  but  not  old  individual. 

ISCHYPTEEUS   FULTUS  Ag.  sp. 

PI.  VI,  Fig.  2;  PI.  VII,  Fig.  1. 

Palwoniscus  fultus  Ag.,  Poiss.  Foss.,  vol.  2,  p.  43,  PI.  VIII,  Figs.  4,  5. 

Palceoniscus  fultus  W.  C.  R.,  Am.  Jour.  Sci.,  vol.  41,  1841,  p.  25. 

Ischypterus  fultus  Egerton,  Quart.  Jour.  Geol.  Soc.  Loudon,  vol.  3,  1847,  p.  277. 

Two  very  imperfect-  fishes  from  Sunderland,  Mass.,  both  wanting  the 
head  and  one  the  tail,  served  as  a  basis  for  Agassiz's  description  of  this 
species.  All  that  can  be  said  about  them  is  that  thev  represent  one  of  the 
smaller  and  narrower  species  of  the  genus  Ischijpterus,  as  defined  by  Sir 
Philip  Egerton.  But  no  one  could  positively  assert,  even  with  the  speci- 
mens in  hand,  that  they  belonged  to  one  or  another  of  several  species  found 
in  the  Connecticut  Valley  and  New  Jersey.  We  are,  however,  better  in- 
formed in  regard  to  the  fish  accepted  by  the  Messrs.  Redfield  as  represent- 
ing the  species  I.  fultus.  Mr.  W.  C.  Redfield,  in  the  article  so  frequently 
referred  to^^  makes  the  following  remarks  upon  this  species : 

Palwoniscus  fultus  Ag.,  tbe  specimen  figured  by  Professor  Agassiz  is  destitute  of 
the  dorscal  and  head,  as  well  as  the  upper  portion  of  the  body.  The  length  was  prob- 
ably four  and  a  half  inches;  but  this  is  ofteu  exceeded  in  other  specimens.  The  fins 
and  their  bony  iusertions  appear  stouter  than  in  P.  latus,  but  less  stout  than  iu  some 
other  species.    Fouud  at  Westfield,  Middlefleld,  and  Durham,  Conn.,  aud  Boonton,  N.  J. 

In  the  report  read  before  the  American  Association  of  Geologists  and 
Naturalists  at  New  Haven,  in  1845,  by  Mr.  J.  II.  Redfield,  I  find  the  fol- 
lowing description  of  this  species  : 

Fish  fusiform,  head  small,  rather  more  than  one-fifth  of  the  whole  length ;  back  nearly 
straight,  but  slightly  arched;  scales  of  medium  size,  ofteu  \vith  concentric  striie,  which 

'Am.  Jour.  Sci.,  vol.  41,  p.  25. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  35 

are  most  apparent  ou  the  posterior  edge;  scales  of  the  dorsal  ridge  pointed  aad  erect- 
ile, but  in  a  umch  less  degree  than  in  Isohypterus  tenuiceps;  pectoral  fins  small,  narrow, 
and  pointed ;  ventrals  small,  very  narrow,  and  pointed ;  dorsal  and  anal  flus  both  very 
long,  with  the  anterior  raylets  very  strong  and  rather  numerous;  primary  rays  of  anal 
about  seven,  slender;  anterior  raylets  about  twelve,  anterior  raylets  of  dorsal  about 
fourteen ;  tail  forked,  lobes  more  acute  than  in  P.  tenuiceps;  accessary  raylets  long 
and  numerous;  length  five  to  seven  inches,  breadth  one  and  a  half  to  two  and  a  quarter 
inches.  The  specimens  from  which  Agassiz  constituted  his  Palwoniscus  fultus  were 
so  imperfect,  that  it  is  difficult  to  decide  with  certainty  which  of  our  specimens  should 
be  referred  to  it.  The  character  which  he  seized  upon  as  its  chief  diagnostic,  and  on 
which  he  founded  its  specific  name,  fultus,  viz,  the  extraordinary  size  of  the  anterior 
■  raylets  of  the  fins,  exists  in  all  the  known  American  species  of  this  genus.  We  are 
not  at  all  sure  that  we  have  rightly  referred  P.  macroptenis  of  W.  C.  E.  to  this  species; 
for  the  specimens'  figured  by  Agassiz  are  represented  with  dorsal  and  anal  fins  which 
are  far  from  having  the  length  of  these  fins  lu  P.  macroptenis.  Those  specimens  were 
evidently  imperfect,  and  it  is  well  known  how  easily  the  frail  and  carbonaceous  rem- 
nants of  rays  are  detached  from  these  fossils,  sometimes  leaving  hardly  a  trace  behind, 
and  it  is  very  possible  that  these  portions  were  broken  in  the  specimens  which  were 
figured  by  Agassiz.  His  name  of  P.  faltiis  shouhl  in  justice  to  him  be  retained,  and 
since  the  long-pointed  fins  of  the  fish  we  have  described  above,  strengthened  as  they 
are  by  large  anterior  raylets,  will  render  the  term  fultus  quite  applicable,  we  think  it 
advisable  to  restrict  Agassiz's  name  to  this  species,  and  suppress  P.  macropterus .  This 
species  is  characterized  by  the  length  of  the  dorsal  and  anal  flus,  which  are  even  longer 
than  iir  P.  tenuiceps,  from  which  species  it  is  also  readily  distinguished  by  its  form,  the 
back  not  suddenly  rising  from  the  head  as  in  that. 

Among  the  fishes  left  by  W.  C.  Redfield  I  find  many  which  are  labeled 
Ischypterus  fultus.  Most  of  these  are  from  Boonton,  and  it  is  repre- 
sented bj  him  as  the  most  common  species  found  there.  The  form  is 
rather  narrow,  the  length  from  six  to  eight  inclies,  the  breadth  never  more 
than  two  inches  at  the  widest  part,  which  is  halfway  between  the  dorsal  fin 
and  the  head  ;  the  fins  are  relatively  large  ;  tlie  tail  is  scarcely  forked,  but 
rather  scalloped,  with  a  broad  and  shallow  sinus;  the  head  is  depressed, 
longer  than  wide,  and  about  one-sixth  of  the  entire  length.  From  Durham 
and  Sunderland  I  have  specimens  which  I  suppose  must  represent  the  fish 
named  P.  fultus  by  Agassiz,  for  his  specimens  were  derived  from  the  latter 
place.  They  are  smaller  than  those  from  New  Jersey,  not  over  six  inches 
in  length  by  one  and  a  quarter  inches  in  breadth.  It  is  quite  possible  that 
they  represent  a  diff'erent  species  from  that  so  common  at  Boonton,  but  that 
can  only  be  shown  by  more  extensive  comparisons  than  I  have  been  able  to 
make. 


36  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

The  fish  represented  on  PI.  VI,  Fig.  2,  is  perhaps  a  fair  example  of 
the  species  so  common  at  Boonton,  and  which  W.  C  Redfield  first  described 
as  Palceoniscus  macropferus.  He  afterward  snppi-essed  that  name  in  deference 
to  Agassiz's  opinion  that  it  was  not  diff'erent  from  those  to  wliich  he  had 
given  the  name  P.  fultus.  PI.  VII,  Fig.  1,  represents  a  smaller  fish,  of 
which  I  have  a  large  number  of  specimens,  but  I  have  considered  these  the 
young  of  the  larger  form  referred  to  above. 

ISCHYPTERUS    ROBUSTUS,  11.  Sp. 
PI.  VI,  Fig.  1. 

Fishes  of  medium  or  large  size,  eight  inches  or  more  in  length  by  three 
in  breadth  anterior  to  the  dorsal  fin;  outline  ovoid;  head  large,  narrowed, 
muzzle  produced;  dorsal  fin  very  lai'ge,  Its  anterior  mai-gin  about  the  middle 
of  the  entire  length  and  nearly  twice  as  far  from  the  posterior  scaled  ex- 
tremity of  the  body  as  from  the  head;  fulcra  very  numerous,  strong,  curved ; 
rays  eleven,  very  strong ;  caudal  fin  of  moderate  size,  upper  lobe  longest ; 
anal  of  moderate  size  ;  ventrals  inserted  nearly  opposite  anterior  margin  of 
dorsal;  pectoral  fins  relatively  long  and  broad;  scales  of  dorsal  line  long, 
forming  a  prominent  crest;   those  of  sides  broad  and  thick. 

This  Is  a  robust  and  coarsely  organized  fish,  most  nearly  allied  to 
Iscliijpterus  ovatus  of  Redfield,  but  distinguished  by  the  great  height, 
breadth,  and  strength  of  the  dorsal  fin  and  Its  anterior  position.  The  pec- 
toral fins  are  a,lso  longer  and  broader  than  in  any  other  species  that  I  have 
seen.  The  ventrals  and  anal  are  not  well  shown  in  the  specimens  before 
me,  but  are  apparently  delicate;  the  caudal  is  relatively  narrow,  the  lower 
lobe  nearly  horizontal,  the  upper  strongly  elevated  and  produced. 

The  great  height  and  breadth  of  the  dorsal  fin  of  this  species  bring  it 
closer  to  Semionotus  than  any  other  of  its  congeners,  and  there  Is  little  doubt 
that  If  It  had  been  found  in  the  Mesozolc  rocks  of  the  Old  World  It  would 
have  been  referred  to  that  genus  ;  indeed,  it  is  now  difficult  to  say  by  what 
characters  it  could  be  distinguished  generically  from  some  of  the  described 
species  oi Semionotus.  The  line  of  spine  like  dorsal  scales  is  somewliat  more 
conspicuous,  but  this  is  only  a  matter  of  detail,  since  something  of  tiie  kind 
is  seen  in  all  the  species  of  that  genus  with  which  I  have  compared  it. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  37 

The  scales  of  this  species  are  rehxtively  large  and  strong,  and  it  is 
evident  that  the  fish  was  firmly  and  robustly  organized;  hence  the  name 
given  it. 

Up  to  the  present  time  I  have  seen  but  two  or  three  specimens,  and 
these  are  all  from  Boonton,  N.  J. 

The  type  is  in  the  geological  museum  of  Columbia  College. 

ISCHYPTERUS    ELEGANS,  n.  Sp. 
'  PI.  VII,  Fig.  2;  PI.  X,  Fig.  1 ;  PI.  XIV,  Figs.  1,  2. 

Fishes  small,  length  four  to  six  inches,  greatest  breadth  two  inches ; 
length  of  head  one  to  one  and  a  quarter  inches,  contained  four  and  a  half 
times  in  the  entire  length;  body  long-ovoid,  elegantl}'  arched;  teeth  rela- 
tively large,  conical,  acute ;  scales  smooth,  about  twenty  in  each  vertical 
row  in  broadest  part  of  body,  and  tliii-t}'-two  in  a  longitudinal  series  along 
the  median  line  to  the  base  of  tlie  triangle  which  extends  into  the  vipper 
lobe  of  the  tail ;  erect  scales  along  dorsal  line  anterior  to  dorsal  fin  about 
twenty,  relatively  small,  first  four  or  five  unarmed ;  head  small,  pointed, 
depressed ;  fins  small,  weak. 

This  is  the  neatest  species  of  the  genus  known  to  me ;  the  curves  of 
the  outline  of  the  body  are  graceful,  the  scaling  crowded  but  exact.  In 
form  it  most  resembles  I.  Uneatus,  but  is  smaller  and  broader,  the  back 
is  more  distinctly  and  regularly  arched,  and  the  scales  are  more  numerous. 
Another  peculiar  feature  in  the  outline  is  the  sudden  contraction  of  the  body 
behind  the  dorsal  fin.  The  scales  are  brilliantly  polished,  and  each  one 
usually  retains  its  position,  so  that  tlie  surface  and  outlines  of  the  fish  are 
well  preserved.  From  this  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  scales  were  thicker 
and  more  firmly  united  than  in  most  species  of  the  genus. 

Collected  at  Boonton,  N.  J.;  type  specimens  in  the  geological  museum 
of  Columbia  College. 

IsCHYPTEEtJS   ALATUS,  n.  sp. 

PI.  VIII,  Figs.  1,  2. 

Fishes  robust,  eight  inches  in  length  by  two  and  a  half  inches  in  great- 
est breadth ;  head  large,  nearly  one-third  of  entire  length ;  fins  relatively 


38  TIMASSIO  PISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

large,  rays  and  fulcra  strong;  dorsal  fin  set  at  the  middle  of  the  entu'e 
length  and  midway  between  the  occiput  and  base  of  caudal. 

These  fishes  resemble  most  those  I  have  called  Ischyptcrus  Uneatus,  and 
they  may  prove  to  be  only  a  well-marked  variety  of  that  species ;  but  in 
this  group  the  body  is  somewhat  narrower,  the  head  is  larger,  the  fins  are 
stronger  and  more  conspicuous,  and  the  dorsal  is  more  posterior  in  position. 

Up  to  the  present  time  fishes  having  the  characters  given  above  have 
only  been  foimd  at  Boonton,  N.  J.  Tlie  types  are  in  tlie  geologieal  museum 
of  Columbia  College. 

ISCHYPTEEUS    MODESTUS,  n.  sp. 
ri.JX,  Pigs.  1,3. 

Fishes  four  to  six  inches  in  length  by  one  and  a  half  to  two  inches  in 
width  ;  outline  of  body  long-ovoid,  symmetrically  arched  above  and  below 
anterior  to  dorsal  and  anal  fins,  rapidly  contracted  behind  to  half  the  ante- 
rior breadth  ;  fins  broad,  strong,  and  rounded;  dorsal  fin  exactly  in  middle 
of  entire  length,  opposite  ventrals,  fulcra  strong,  twelve  in  number,  rays 
eleven  ;  tail  relatively  broad,  slightly  eniarginate  lobes  nearl}-  equal,  rays 
fifteen  ;  anal  rounded,  not  reaching  base  of  caudal,  fulcra  ten  (?),  rays 
seven ;  head  relatively  large,  one-fourth  the  entire  length,  rounded,  some- 
what obtuse ;  scales  of  dorsal  line  eighteen,  of  medium  size,  the  one  imme- 
diately anterior  to  the  dorsal  fin  shield-shaped,  not  emarginate  behind; 
scales  of  sides  relatively  large  and  thick. 

The  fishes  which  have  been  included  in  this  species  are  small,  and  have 
the  outlines  of  the  body  and  fins  rounded  so  as  to  give  a  smooth  and  gentle 
aspect ;  the  curves  of  the  body  are  all  graceful  and  flowing ;  the  back  and 
abdomen  are  uniformly  arched  to  the  dorsal  and  anal  fins ;  behind  these 
the  outline  contracts  rapidly  by  concave  curves  until  the  width  at  the  base 
of  the  tail  is  less  than  half  that  of  the  anterior  portion  of  the  body. 

The  fishes  most  nearl)-  allied  to  these  are  those  which  I  have  included 
under  the  name  /.  eler/ans,  and  it  is  perhaps  not  certain  they  sliould  be  re- 
garded as  distinct.  The  head  is,  however,  more  obtuse  and  rounded,  the 
back  less  highly  arched,  and  the  fins  apparently  broader  than  in  that  species. 
Also  the  scales  are  larjjer  and  thicker  and  those  of  the  dorsal  line  strono;er. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  39 

Collected  at  Boonton,  N.  J.  Types  in  geological  museum  of  Colum- 
bia College. 

ISCHYPTERUS    LENTICULARIS,  11.  Sp. 
PI.  X,  Figs.  2,  3. 

Fishes  six  to  six  and  a  half  inches  long  by  two  to  two  and  a  half 
inches  wide  ;  general  outline  lenticular ;  body  widest  at  the  middle,  sloping 
gently  to  tlie  muzzle  and  tail ;  head  pointed  or  obtuse,  relatively  large,  a 
little  less  than  one-quarter  of  the  entire  length ;  fins  all  small  and  delicate 
for  the  size  of  tlie  fish ;  scales  apparentl}^  thin,  those  of  the  dorsal  line 
relatively  small. 

Among  several  hundred  fishes  obtained  at  Boonton,  N.  J.,  there  are  a 
number  which  correspond  to  the  above  description.  They  are  relatively 
broad  and  have  a  nearly  symmetrical  lenticular  outline,  the  tail  being  small 
and  the  body  at  its  base  only  about  one-third  as  wide  as  before  the  dorsal 
fin.  The  fins  are  all  small  and  weak,  the  fulcra  slender,  nearly  straight 
and  closely  appressed.  The  general  form  is  similar  to  that  of  /.  ovatus, 
but  these  fishes  are  not  half  the  size  of-  those  to  which  W.  C.  Redfield 
gave  that  name,  and  the  whole  structure  is  much  more  delicate.  In  Z 
ovatus  the  scales  of  the  dorsal  line  and  sides  would  seem  to  have  been  very 
thick  and  strong,  the  fins  are  large,  the  fulcra  strongly  arched.  The  rela- 
tion of  these  smaller  ovoid  fishes  is  rather  with  those  to  which  I  have  given 
the  name  7.  elegans,  and  here  the  differences  may  be  those  of  age  or  sex. 
The  group  designated  by  the  latter  name  consists  of  fishes  which  are  much 
smaller,  often  not  much  more  than  half  the  length  arid  breadth,  the  lower 
line  of  the  body  being  nearly  straight,  the  upper  liighl}^  arched  before  tlie 
dorsal  fin,  concavely  narrowed  behind.  Hence  I  have  supposed  that  they 
constitute  a  distinct  species. 

Up  to  the  present  time  I  have  seen  no  such  fishes  as  those  under  con- 
sideration at  any  other  locality  than  at  Boonton.  There  are  none  such  in 
all  the  collections  made  at  Durham  or  Sunderland.  In  tlie  first  of  these 
localities  I.  microptenis  apparently  takes  their  place,  but  this,  though  like  in 
the  small  size  of  the  fins,  is  distinguished  by  its  depressed,  pointed  muzzle 
and  the  cuneate  outline  of  the  body,  which  is  widest  immediately  behind 


40  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLAlS^TS 

the  head.  At  Sunderland,  I.  tenuiceps  is  the  prevailing  species,  and,  though 
often  ovoid  in  outline^  may  always  be  distinguislied  by  its  humped  back 
and  huge  dorsal  scales.  The  fins  are  also  larger  than  those  of  either  of  the 
above  mentioned  species. 

ISCHYPTERUS   LINEATUS,  n.  sp. 
PI.  XI,  Figs.  1,  2. 

Fishes  six  to  eight  inches  in  length  ;  outline  when  perfectly  preserved 
uniformly  arched  above  and  below ;  head  relatively  large,  contained  about 
four  times  in  entire  length,  broadly  conical  in  outline  ;  fins  all  large  ; 
fulcra  arched ;  scales  of  dorsal  line  spinous  and  strong,  but  less  developed 
than  in  I.  tenukeps;  ribs  and  interspinous  bones  frequently  preserved ; 
scales  on  sides  thick  and  strong,  arranged  in  continuous  rows  from  the  head 
backward,  so  as  to  give  a  lined  appearance,  which  has  suggested  the  spe- 
cific name. 

The  fishes  of  this  group  are  not  easily  separated  from  some  of  their 
associates;  some  individuals  resembling  those  of/.  Jenticularis;  but  in  these 
latter  the  outline  is  more  symmetrical,  the  fins  smaller,  the  scales  more  deli- 
cate, particularly  those  of  the  dorsal  line.  On  the  other  hand,  tliey  approach 
through  the  smaller  individuals  the  group  to  which  I  have  given  the  name 
of  /.  eJegans;  but  these  latter  are  smaller,  the  arch  of  the  back  is  higher,  the 
head  more  depressed  and  acute,  the  fins  and  scales  are  more  delicate. 
Still  another  variet}',  including  the  narrower  forms,  comes  nearer  to  I.  fnltus. 
On  the  whole,  however,  this  group  of  long  ovoid  fishes,  from  two  to  three 
inches  wide,  are  distinguishable  at  a  glance  from  those  which  have  the  nar- 
row lanceolate  outlines  of  I.  fuJtus,  a  fish  which,  though  attaining  the  length 
of  six  to  seven  inches,  never  passes  a  width  of  an  incli  and  a  half. 

The  fishes  to  which  I  have  given  the  name  of  IscJii/ptrnts  alatus,  and 
have  represented  on  PI.  VIII,  are  perhaps  most  like  those  under  consid- 
eration, and  I  hesitated  long  before  separating  them ;  indeed,  it  is  probable 
they  will  be  found  to  run  into  each  other,  so  that  they  must  be  regarded  as 
varieties  of  one  species.  By  comparing  tlie  figures  now  given,  however,  it 
will  be  seen  that  in  the  fishes  I  have  called  I.  alatus  the  fins  are  stronger, 
and  the  dorsal  is  placed  farther  forward,  its  anterior  margin  being  just  mid- 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  41 

way  between  the  occiput  and  the  base  of  tlie  caudal  fin.  In  the  fishes 
named  I.  lineatus  the  body  is  shorter  and  broader,  the  sides  are  more  dis- 
tinctly lined,  and  the  dorsal  fin  is  set  farther  back. 

Found  in  considerable  numbers  at  Boonton,  N.  J.,  but  up  to  the  present 
time  not  obtained  from  any  otlier  locality. 

Type  specimens  iu  the  geological  museum  of  Columbia  Collee-e. 

ISCHYP'TERUS   MACEOPTEEUS  W.  C.  R. 

PI.  XII,  Fig.  1. 

Fishes  six  to  eight  inches  in  length  by  one  and  a  lialf  to  two  and  a  half 
inches  broad,  long-ovoid  or  fusiform  in  outline,  symmetrically  arched  above 
and  below;  head  large,  one  quarter  the  entire  length,  conical  in  outline; 
fins  relatively  large  and  strong;  dorsal  opposite  the  interval  between  the 
anal  and  ventrals,  point  of  insertion  nearer  to  the  extremity  of  the  tail  than 
to  the  muzzle,  fulcra  fifteen,  rays  eight  ?;  caudal  broad,  rays  and  fulcra 
strong;  anal  reaching  to  base  of  caudal,  fulcra  fifteen,  rays  ?;  scales  rela- 
tively thick  ;  ribs  and  spinous  processes  strong,  and  often  distinctly  showing 
in  the  fossil  state. 

W.  C.  Redfield'  describes  vei-y  briefly  a  species  of  Ischypterus,  which 
he  calls  PalcBoniscus  macropterus,  in  the  following  words: 

PakeonisGus  macropterus  W.  C.  R.— Long-fiuned  Palseoniscus.  This  species  is  dis- 
tinguished by  the  longitudinal  extension  of  the  dor.sal  and  anal  fins;  which  thus  seem 
to  present  :i  remote  resemblance  to  the  wings  or  foiiced  tail  of  the  coiiiinon  swallow. 
Its  length  is  comuioidy  from  live  to  seven  inches,  and  its  widtli  from  one  and  a  half 
to  two  inches. 

Among  the  large  number  of  fossil  fishes  which  have  been  collected  at 
Boonton,  N.  J.,  the  most  abundant  are  such  as  were  regarded  by  the  Messrs. 
Redfield  as  representing  Agassiz's  species  Ischypterus  fiiltus.  They  are  gen- 
erally fusiform  in  outline,  six  to  eiglit  inches  in  length,  and  all  have  in  marked 
degree  the  strong  fin-fulcra  characteristic  of  the  genus.  Tliere  are,  how- 
ever, two  groups  of  these  fishes  having  about  the  same  average  size,  one 
more  slender  and  coming  nearer  to  those  which,  sent  from  the  Connecticut 
Valley,  were  described  by  Agassiz  with  the  name  o(  Palceoniscus  fuUus;  the 

'  Sliort  Notices  of  Amcricau  Fossil  Fishes,  Am.  Jour.  Sci.,  vol.  41,  1841,  p.  25. 


42  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

otlier  group  is  mucli  broader,  the  body  being  sometimes  two  and  a  half 
inches  liigh  anterior  to  the  dorsal  fin.  These  were  relatively  flat  fishes,  while 
the  others  were  cylindrical  or  fusiform.  As  we  compare  most  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  two  groups  they  seem  so  unlike  tliat  no  one  would  hesitate  about 
considering  them  distinct  species,  but  it  is  also  true  that  there  are  interme- 
diate forms,  which  serve  to  connect  these  groups,  and  which  are  apparently 
as  near  to  one  as  to  the  other.  Hence  it  is  not  easy  to  define  accurately 
either  of  tlie  two  species  which  W.  C.  Redfield  has  founded  upon  tlieni.  In 
most  cases,  however,  there  need  be  no  doubt,  the  fusiform  and  slender  fish 
standing  for  I.fultm,  the  broader  one  fin-  /.  nmcropterus.  In  ni}-  notes  on 
Iscliypterus  fultm  I  have  furtlier  discussed  this  question,  "and  have  shown 
how  difficult  it  is  to  identify  the  species,  which  have  been  described  very 
briefly  from  imperfect  material,  and  where  the  type  specimens  have  been  lost 
sight  of. 

Another  reason  why  we  may  suspect  that  the  fishes  combined  by 
Agassiz  and  subsequently  by  Redfield  under  the  name  of  /.  faltns  should 
be  referred  to  two  species,  is  found  in  their  distribution.  As  remarked  else- 
where, the  individuals  figured  by  Agassiz  and  taken  as  the  types  of  his 
species  fultiis,  are  so  imperfect  that  they  cannot  certainly  be  identified  with 
any  of  the  Triassic  fishes  obtained  from  the  Connecticut  Valley  or  from 
New  Jei'sey.  I  have  even  suspected  that  they  were  only  mutilated  speci- 
mens of  the  most  common  speices,  I.  tenuiceps,  found  at  Sunderland,  where 
Agassiz's  fishes  were  obtained ;  but  occasionall}^  a  narrow,  fusiform,  and 
smaller  fish  is  met  with  at  Sunderland  and  Turner's  Falls,  which  may  be 
the  same  with  those  figured  by  Agassiz.  Whether  this  is  identical  with 
any  of  the  fishes  found  in  New  Jersey  is  yet  uncertain,  because  the 
material  we  now  have  for  comparison  is  inadequate ;  but  if  identical  with 
either  of  the  New  Jersey  forms  it  is  with  the  narrower  one,  which  Avas 
adopted  by  W.  C.  Redfield  as  the  representative  of  the  species  I.  fidtus. 
Up  to  the  present  time  none  of  the  broader  fishes  which  I  have  taken  as 
representing  Redfield's  species  or  variety,  7.  macropterus,  have  been  found 
the  Connecticut  Valley ;  a  fact  which  justifies  the  inference  that  these  in 
closely  allied  forms  are  specifically  distinct. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  43 

ISCHYPTEEUS    BrAUNII,    n.  Sp. 
PI.  XII,  Fig.  3;  PL  XIII,  Figs.  1,  2,  2a. 

Fishes  three  to  five  inches  in  length  by  one  to  one  and  a  half  inches 
broad;  outline  long-elliptical ;  body  compressed;  head  relatively  large, 
contained  three  to  three  and  a  half  times  in  total  lengtli ;  teeth  large, 
pointed,  acute  ;  cranial  bones  granulated  ;  operculum  semicircular,  large  ; 
preoperculum  long-elliptical,  having  much  the  form  of  the  operculum,  but 
very  much  smaller ;  fins  small,  with  delicate  fulcra  and  rays ;  dorsal  and 
anal  placed  far  back,  dorsal  midway  between  occiput  and  extremity  of  tail, 
very  long  from  front  to  rear,  fulcra  small,  rays  ten  ;  anal  reaching  back  to 
or  beyond  base  of  caudal,  fulcra  eight  (?),  rays  five  ;  jointed  rays  of  caudal 
fin  fifteen  ;  scales  rhomboidal  or  square,  more  uniform  in  size  than  any 
other  species  known,  number  along  lateral  line  tliirty-tlu'ee,  in  vertical  rows 
sixteen;  scales  of  dorsal  line  rounded  before,  pointed  or  short-spined 
behind. 

This  species  is  of  peculiar  interest  as  coming  from  the  base  of  the 
Triassic  rocks  of  New  Jersey,  from  a  horizon  probably  several  thousand 
feet  lower  than  that  of  the  Boonton  specimens,  which  are  from  near  the  top 
of  the  series.  It  may  be  distinguished  from  all  other  known  species  by  the 
uniformity  in  the  size  of  the  scales  and  by  the  posterior  position  of  the 
dorsal  fin.  The  armature  of  the  dorsal  line  is  also  less  strong  and  con- 
spicuous than  in  most  of  the  species  of  the  genus  ;  in  this  respect  it  is  inter- 
mediate between  the  strongly  spined  species  oi  Isclujpterus,  such  as  I.tenuiceps 
and  those  which  have  been  grouped  in  the  genus  Acentropliorus  by  Dr. 
Traquair,  of  which  we  have  an  example  in  A.  chicopensis,  described  in  this 
memoir.  In  that  fish  all  of  the  median  scales  of  the  dorsal  line  anterior  to 
the  dorsiai  fin  are  unarmed. 

The  only  locality  from  which  fishes  of  the  present  species  have  been 
obtained  is  Weehawken,  N.  J.  Here,  beneath  the  trap  of  the  Palisades,  is 
a  stratum  of  highly  metamoi'phosed  slate  which  was  once  a  bituminous 
shale,  but  which  has  been  baked  by  the  efi'usion  of  the  great  mass  of  molten 
matter  above  it;  the  fishes  are  found  in  this  slate.     In  some  layers  it  also 


44  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AISD  PLANTS. 

contains  great  numbers  of  bivalve  crustaceans  (Estheria),  which  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  it  was  deposited  in  brackish  water.  But  little  exca- 
vation has  been  made  in  this  stratum,  and  it  is  probable  that  it  will  hereafter 
yield  other  things  new  to  our  Triassic  feuna 

A  description  of  this  locality  and  of  the  fossils  found  there  was  pub- 
lished by  L.  P.  Gratacap.^  A  wood-cut  figure  of  a  large  specimen  of  fish 
found  there  is  given,  and  it  is  regarded  as  identical  with  Paloeoniscus  httus 
of  Eedfield.  Through  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  Gratacap  I  have  examined  the 
original  of  his  illustration,  and  I  have  been  permitted  to  make  a  draw- 
ing of  it,  which  is  now  published  (Fig.  2).  I  found  it  essentially  like  a 
large  number  of  fishes  from  Weehawken  which  are  in  my  hands,  except 
that  it  is  larger  and  broader  than  any  other  specimen  I  have  seen.  All  the 
fishes  from  this  locality  have  the  dorsal  and  anal  fins  set  for  ba(;k,  tlie  anal 
reaching  to  or  beyond  the  base  of  the  caudal.  This  would  serve  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  /.  hdiis,  but  they  also  differ  from  that  species  in. the 
gi-eater  uniformity  in  the  size  of  the  scales  In  most  species  of  Isclujpterus 
four  rows  of  scales  on  either  side  of  the  line  of  dorsal  spines  are  nearly 
square ;  the  next  eight  rows  are  higher  than  long;  then  follow  seven  rows  of 
smaller  scales  to  the  median  line  of  the  abdomen.  In  these  fishes,  however, 
the  scales  on  the  side  are  not  conspicuously  larger  than  the  otliers,  and  there 
is  also  less  difference  in  their  size,  going  from  front  to  rear.  Hence  I  must 
conclude  tliat  they  belong  to  a  distinct  species  from  Iscliypieriis  httus,  which 
also  occurs  much  higher  in  the  Triassic  series.  In  Mr.  Gratacap's  figure 
the  number  of  scales  in  the  vertical  rows  of  the  side  is  represented  as  twenty- 
three;  a  number  which  I  have  found  equaled  in  only  one  species  of  the 
genus,  I.  ovntus,  in  which  it  is  twenty-four.  The  specimen  does  not  permit 
the  scales  in  the  widest  part  to  be  counted,  but  immediately  anterior  to  the 
dorsal  and  anal  fins  the  number  is  apparently  sixteen  ;  this  renders  il  prob- 
able that  the  number  in  the  anterior  rows  may  reach  nineteen,  a  number 
which  may  be  considered  as  normal  for  the  genus. 

The  posterior  position  of  the  dorsal  fin,  the  uniformity  in  the  size  of 
the  scales,  and  tlie  unarmed  or  short-spined  character  of  those  of  the  dorsal 
line  clearly  mark  this  species  as  distinct  from  any  other  known. 

'Am.  Naturalist,  vol.  20,  188fi,  pp.  243-246. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  45 

ISCHYPTEEUS   PARVUS  W.  C.  R.  (MS). 
PI.  XIII,  Fig.  i.    ■ 

In  the  manuscript  report  of  J.  H.  Redfield,  now  in  my  hands,  I  find 
a  description  of  a  small  species  of  Ischi/pferus  to  which  he  gives  the  above 
name,  crediting  it  to  W.  C  Redfield.  He  also  refers  to  the  figures  given 
by  Prof.  Edward  Hitchcock^  as  illustrating  the  species.  His  description  is 
as  follows : 

Fish  small  and  fusiform;  bead  small — less  than  one-quarter  length  of  tisb  ;  scales 
minute  concentrically  striate,  pectorals  rather  small,  rays  delicate ;  ventrals  very 
small;  dorsal  small  and  triangular,  with  anterior  raylets  stout  and  few  in  number;  anal 
very  small;  tail  forked,  lobes  rather  obtuse;  length  three  inches,  breadth  three- 
quarters  of  an  inch. 

Occurs  at  Sunderland,  Mass.,  Boonton,  N.  J.,  and  [teriiaps  at  Westfield,  Conn. 

This  species  is  rare.  Very  few  perfect  individuals  have  been  found.  Its  small  size 
and  the  delicate  character  of  its  scales  and  fins  will  at  once  distinguish  it. 

The  above  description  is  so  brief  and  general  that  in  the  absence  of 
type  specimens  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  identify  the  species.  The 
figures  in  the  Geology  of  Massachusetts,  to  which  Mr.  Redfield  refers,  are 
evidently  drawn  from  very  imperfectly  preserved  fishes,  of  which  little  more 
can  be  said  than  that  they  belong  to  the  genus  Ischypteriis.  They  are,  how- 
ever, quite  distinct  from  the  little  fishes  found  at  Durham  to  which  I  have 
given  the  name  /.  minutus,  being  narrower  and  more  fusiform  and  with 
much  smaller  dorsal  fins.  A  little  fish  found  at  Sunderland,  much  more  like 
those  figured  by  Hitchcock,  is  represented  on  Plate  XVHI,  Fig.  4.  It  is 
fairly  well  preserved,  and  we  can  see  by  its  fusiform  body  and  small  dorsal 
scales  that  it  is  not  the  young  of  I.  tenuiceps.  There  can  be  little  doubt, 
therefore,  that  it  represents  the  species  figured  by  Hitchcock  and  cited  by 
Redfield  as  representing  his  I.  parvus.  The  figure  now  given  may  therefore 
be  taken  as  the  first  truthful  illustration  of  that  species.  Whether  it  is  dis- 
tinct from  any  other  described  remains  to  be  shown  by  further  investigation. 
At  Durham  and  Sunderland  fusiform  fishes  of  the  genus  Iscliyptenis  con- 
siderably larger  than  this  or  that  figured  by  Hitchcock  occur,  though 
rarely,  and  not   often   in   good   preservation.      These  have   the   general 

'Geol.  Mass.,  r^narto  ed.,  vol.  2,  j)!.  XXIX,  fig.  3,  aucl  iii'atlas  accoiliiiauyiug  octavo  ed.,  pi.  XIV, 
fig.  44. 


46  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

aspects  and  proportions  of  the  much  smaller  fish  now  figured,  and  it  is 
possible  they  are  only  older  individuals  of  the  same  species.  Of  this,  how- 
ever, we  have  no  positive  proof.  The  larger  fishes  referred  to  were  con- 
sidered by  W.  C.  Redfield  as  belonging  to  the  species  /.  fuUus,  and  that  is 
possible  ;  but  judging  from  the  material  I  have  seen  I  should  say  the  fishes 
of  the  Connecticut  Valley  were  more  delicate  in  structure,  with  smaller  and 
weaker  fins,  and  that  they  will  probably  prove  to  be  distinct. 

ISCHYPTEEUS    LATUS   3.  H.  R. 

PI.  XIII,  Fig.  3. 

Palwoniscus  latus  J.  H.  R.,  Annals  New  York  Lyceum  Nat.  Hist.,  vol.  4,  PI.  II, 
without  description. 
Palmonisciis  latus  J.  H.  R.,  Am.  Jour.,  Sci.,  vol.  41,  1841,  p.  25. 

The  figure  given  by  Mr.  J.  H.  Redfield  in  the  Annals  of  the  Lyceum 
lacks  the  head  and  does  not  fully  show  the  tail  nor  the  fins.  No  description 
accompanies  the  plate  in  the  article  referred  to  above;  the  only  mention  of 
the  species  in  the  Journal  of  Science  is  exceedingly  brief,  and  reads  as 
follows : 

PalcEoniscus  latus  J.  H.  Red  field— Broad  Palteouiscus.  The  common  length  of  this 
species  is  from  four  to  five  inches,  and  its  width  is  fiom  one  and  a  half  to  two  and  a 
quarter  inches.  It  is  figured  in  the  Annals  of  the  New  York  Lyceum  of  Natural  His- 
tory, vol.  4. 

Found  at  Westfleld,  Middleficld,  and  Durham,  Conn.,  and  Boonton,  N.  J. 

In  the  manuscript  catalogue  of  the  fossil  fishes  of  the  United  States, 
read  before  the  Association  of  American  Geologists  and  Naturalists  by  J. 
H.  Redfield,  I  find  the  following  description  of  Palceoniscus  latus.- 

Fish  ovate,  fusiform,  head  obtuse,  rather  large,  between  ouethh'd  and  one-quarter  the 
whole  length  of  the  fish ;  scales  small,  those  of  the  anterior  portion  of  the  body  much 
deeper  than  long, concentrically  striate,  especially  on  the  posterior  edge;  pectoral  fins 
small  and  delicate ;  ventrals  small ;  dorsal  rather  large,  with  anterior  raylets  very  long, 
stout,  and  numerous;  anal  moderate,  anterior  raylets  strong,  tail  forked,  lobes  rather 
obtuse,  anterior  raylets  small;  length  four  to  five  inches,  breadth  one  and  a  half  to 
two  inches. 

Occurs  at  Sunderland,  Mass.;  Middletown,  Conn.;  Pompton  and  Boonton,  N.  J. 

The  dorsal  and  anal  fins  of  P.  latus  are  far  less  elongated  than  iu  the  other  species, 
though  they  still  preserve  the  strong  armature  peculiar  to  the  American  species  of 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  47 

Palceouiscus.  The  comparative  breatUU  of  this  species  with  the  sraallness  of  its  scales 
will  also  readily  distinguish  it  from  its  Americau  cougeuers.  The  scales  of  the  anterior 
portion  of  the  body  are  deeper  in  proportion  to  their  length  than  iu  any  other  species 
unless  in  P.  ovatvs. 

The  figure  given  of  this  species  by  J.  H.  Redtield  was  taken  from  a 
specimen  which  has  unfortunately  been  hjst.  I  have  not  been  able 
to  find  in  the  Redfield  collection  the  original  of  this  figure;  it  probably 
belonged  to  the  New  York  Lyceum  of  Natural  History,  and  was  burned 
with  the  rest  of  its  collections.  The  lack  of  it  has  made  tlie  identification 
of  the  species  difiicult.  There  are,  however,  no  small,  short,  and  broad  fishes 
found  at  the  localities  enumerated  by  Mr.  Redfield  that  agree  at  all  well 
with  his  figure  and  description. 

At  Sunderland,  Mass.,  and  Plainfield,  N.  J.,  we  have  obtained  a  few 
small  ovoid  fishes  which  correspond  better  than  any  others  with  the  definition 
of  /.  latus.  These  fishes  have  about  the  dimensions  assigned  to  this  species  by 
J.  H.  Redfield,  viz,  a  length  of  four  to  five  inches  and  a  width  of  one  and  a 
half;  the  head  is  i-elatively  small  and  pointed,  the  scales  of  the  dorsal  line 
are  prominent,  and  the  broad  shield-shaped  scale  which  covers  the  base  of 
the  dorsal  fin  is  relatively  very  large— as  large,  indeed,  as  in  any  of  the  large 
species  of  the  genus — and  is  notched  behind  where  it  touches  the  first  of  the 
fulcra.  The  fins  are  all  small  and  weak,  the  body  immediately  anterior  to 
the  caudal  fin  is  narrowed  to  about  one-third  of  the  breadth  between  the 
head  and  dorsal,  the  scales  are  relatively  small  and  crowded,  eighteen  in  a 
vertical  row  between  the  median  lines  of  back  and  abdomen  in  the  broadest 
part  of  the  fish.  Of  these,  the  six  lower  are  small,  square,  and  of  nearly 
uniform  size;  the  seventh  row  is  the  beginning  of  a  series  consisting  of  eie-ht, 
which  are  higher  tlian  long,  the  middle  ones  near  the  head  being  just  twice 
as  high  as  broad;  above  these  higher  scales  are  four  rows  of  smaller  square 
ones,  of  which  the  uppermost  is  excavated  to  fit  the  rounded  base  of  the 
great  spined  scale  which  stands  at  the  head  of  the  row. 

These  little  fishes  I  have  supposed  might  represent  Mr.  Redfield's 
species,  but  I  have  found  none  at  Boonton  or  Durham  which  I  could  associate 
with  them.  At  Boonton  a  somewhat  similar  species  (J.  elegans)  is  not  un- 
common, but  that  is  larger,  has  smaller  dorsal  scales,  and  a  more  arched  back. 


48  TEIASSIO  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

ISCHYPTEEUS   MINUTUS,    11.    Sp. 
PI.  XIII,  Figs.  5,  5a. 

Fisbes  three  inches  In  length  b}^  one  inch  broad  ;  long-ovoid  in  outline  ; 
body  widest  at  base  of  dorsal  fin ;  head  pointed,  one-quarter  the  entire 
length  ;  dorsal  fin  located  at  about  the  center  of  the  body,  relatively  large 
and  broad  ;  anal  fin  just  reaching  to  base  of  caudal ;  tail  narrow ;  caudal 
fin,  like  all  the  others,,  delicate  in  structure. 

The  little  fislies  upon  which  the  above  description  is  based  have  been 
found  only  at  Durham,  Conn.  They  diff"er  from  the  other  small  species 
of  the  genus  found  elsewhere  by  their  broader,  more  ovoid  outline^  the 
large  size  and  breadth  of  the  dorsal  fin,  and  the  general  delicacy  of 
structure. 

It  is  .quite  possible  that  we  have  here  the  young  of  some  species  of 
Ischypterus  of  which  the  mature  form  has  been  described  under  another 
name,  but  there  is  no  fish  found  in  the  locality  where  these  occur  with 
which  the  resemblance  is  so  close  as  to  indicate  this,  and  no  connecting 
links  have  been  found  between  these  little  fishes  and  those  of  larger  size. 
Their  structure  was  evidently  very  delicate,  and  they  are  so  imperfectly 
preserved  that  a  full  description  and  satisfactory  comparisons  can  not  be 
made  from  any  specimens  )-et  obtained.  Till  more  material  further  illumi- 
nating the  subject  shall  be  procured  we  may  consider  the  individuals  of 
this  species  as  distinguished  by  their  small  size,  ovoid  form,  delicate  struct- 
ure, and  especially  by  the  relatively  great  size  and  breadth  of  the  dorsal  fin. 

The  small  size  is  in  itself,  perhaps,  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  delicate 
structure,  which  permitted  the  destruction  of  most  parts;  but  it  will  be 
noticed  that  in  botb  the  specimens  now  fissured  the  body  is  unusually  wide 
opposite  the  dorsal  fin,  and  this  fin  is  relatively  larger  and  broader  than  in 
any  other  known  species  of  the  genus.  Possibly  this  is  simply  the  i-esult  of 
immaturity,  as  the  fins  are  abnormally  large  in  many  young  fishes.  The 
great  breadth  of  the  dorsal  fin  may,  however,  prove  a  constant  character, 
and  thus  serve  as  a  means  of  distinguishing  the  species.  Small  fishes  occur 
at  Boonton  and  Sunderland,  but  they  are  usually  so  badly  preserved,  that 
little  can  be  said  of  their  specific  relations.     Oijly  at  Durham  do  we  find 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  49 

the  details  of  structure  retaiued,  and  all  the  small  fishes  of  the  genera 
Catoptenis  and  Iscliyptenis  which  I  have  thouglit  worthy  to  be  figured  have 
been  obtained  there. 

It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  among  the  thousands  of  presumably 
mature  individuals  of  all  the  six  genera  yet  found  in  our  Triassic  rocks 
the  young  are  so  generally  absent.  Some  difference  in  size  is  perceptible 
among  those  wdiich  we  suppose  to  represent  the  twenty-eight  known  species, 
but  if  young  and  old  were  in  the  habit  of  associating  together  we  ought  to 
have  graded  sizes  of  many  of  the  species.  From  the  facts  that  we  do  not 
find  them  and  that  tlie  variation  in  size  among  those  which  we  are  able  to 
distinguish  by  certain  definite  characteristics  is  limited,  we  must  infer  that 
the  young  of  all  or  most  of  these  species  associated  together  in  different 
localities  from  those  where  the  mature  individuals  are  now  found.  Probably 
some  such  nurseries  of  tlie  Triassic  fishes  will  yet  be  discovered  and  will 
help  the  paleontologist  of  the  future  to  discriminate  between  the  species, 
but  we  must  conclude  that  in  the  material  now  before  us  we  have  onl}' 
mature  or  submature  fishes,  and  this  gives  a  probability  to  the  distinctions 
we  now  make.  Where  we  find  twenty,  fifty,  or  one  hundred  fishes  which 
present  common  characters  in  size,  outline,  strength,  shape  of  fins,  etc,  we 
ma}'  fairly  conclude  that  these  represent  one  species.  Like  all  similar 
work,  however,  this  must  be  considered  as  only  provisional  and  liable  to 
modification  by  the  accumulation  of  more  and  better  material. 

ISCHYPTERUS    GIGAS,  n.  sp. 
PI.  XIV,  Fig.  3. 

Among  the  fish  remains  which  were  the  fruit  of  many  weeks  of  quarry- 
ing at  Boonton  a  few  fragments  were  obtained  which  belong  to  a  species 
of  Iscliypterus  much  larger  than  any  hitherto  described.  Unfortunately,  the 
importance  of  these  specimens  was  not  appreciated  by  the  quarrymen,  and 
tliey  did  not  take  pains  to  preserve  all  the  material  which  they  brought  to 
light.  The  remains  of  two  individuals  were  found,  both  unfortunately 
much  macerated  and  dismembered,  the  tails  and  posterior  portions  of  the 
body,  the  most  resistant  parts,  alone  being  well  preserved.     The  heads  and 

MON  XIV — -4 


50  TEIASSIG  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

middle  portions  of  the  body  were  a  mass  of  scales  and  bones  apparently 
representing  the  place  and  area  of  the  abdomen,  shoulders,  and  head,  but 
two  much  confused  to  admit  of  accurate  description  or  representation.    The 
length  of  the  fish  must  have  been  eighteen  to  twenty  inches  and  the  breadth 
of  the  body  at  the  widest  part  at  least  six  inches.     At  the  narrowest  point, 
immediately  anterior  to  the  base  of  the  caudal  fin  it  is  quite  two  inches 
wide;    the  tail  when  fully   expanded  must    have  been  five  or  six  inches 
broad.     It  consisted,  apparently,  of  fifteen  closely  jointed  rays,  some  of 
which  are  one-quarter  of  an  inch  in  width;  the  fulcra  are  numerous  above, 
still  more  so  below ;    the  anal  fin  was  about  three  inches  long,  having  at 
least  sixteen  fulcra  and  seven   rays  ;    the  scales  half  an  inch  or  more  in 
diameter,  thick,  enamel  covered,  and  shining.     The  general  aspect  of  the 
fish  is  that  of  Lepidofus,  as  it  is  much  larger  and  coarser  than  most  species 
of  Iscliijpterus.     The  tail,  however,  is  considerably  more  heterocercal  than 
in  any  species  of  Leindotus,  and  in  fact  in  structure  is  precisely  like  that  of 
Ischjpteriis.     The  dorsal  line  is  very  imperfectly  shown  in  my  specimens, 
and  it  is  impossible  to  determine  from  them  whether  a  row  of  spine-like 
scales  extended  from  the  head  to  the  dorsal  fin.     This  would  be  conclusive 
as  to  the  relationship  of  this  fish  to  Ischypterus,  and  doubtless  that  evidence 
will  be  forthcoming. 

Genus  CATOPTERUS  J.  H.  R. 

Tile-scaled  ganoids  of  medium  size,  body  fusiform  or  long- ovoid  in  out- 
line; head  relatively  small,  obtuse  or  acute,  all  head  bones  highly  orna- 
mented ;  cranium  opercula,  maxillaries,  and  mandibles  covered  with  tuber- 
cles of  enamel ;  clavicles  bearing  parallel  or  interrupted  raised  lines  ;  teeth 
numerous,  conical,  acute  on  premaxillaries,  maxillaries,  and  mandibles ;  fins 
broadly  or  narrowly  triangular,  acute,  all  bearing  numerous  closely-set, 
rod-like  fulcra  along  the  anterior  margins;  rays  many-jointed,  enameled, 
and  polished  ;  dorsal  fin  placed  far  back  on  the  body,  generally  opposite  the 
middle  of  the  anal ;  caudal  fin  deeply  and  gracefully  forked ;  extremity  of 
body  obliquely  rounded  and  extended  a  sliort  distance  into  the  upper  lobe 
of  the  caudal  fin  ;  anal  fin  reaching  nc^arly  to  base  of  caudal ;  ventrals 
midway  between  anal  and  pectorals;  scales rhomboidal  on  the  sides,  toward 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  51 

tlie  head  quadrate,  often  toothed,  near  the  tail  long  lozenge-shaped,  acute. 
Along  tlie  middle  line  of  the  back  runs  a  row  of  somewhat  larger  ovoid,  or 
polygonal  scales  of  peculiar  form.  The  surface  of  most  of  the  scales  is 
smooth  and  polished,  but  in  some  species  those  on  the  sides  near  the  head 
are  marked  with  oblique  raised  lines,  and  in  one  species  the  surface  is 
occupied  by  lines  parallel  with  the  margin  and  converging  to  the  posterior 
point. 

The  most  striking  peculiarity  of  this  genus  is  the  posterior  position  of 
the  dorsal  fin,  a  cliaracter  which  suggested  the  name  given  it  by  J.  H.  Red- 
field. 

The  species  of  Catoptems  are  among  the  most  beautiful  of  fossil  fishes ; 
the  outline  is  graceful,  the  head  bones  are  crowded  with  ornamentation,  the 
scales  highly  polislied,  often  serrate  or  toothed  on  the  posterior  margin,  and 
decorated  with  parallel  or  concentric  raised  Hnes.  The  fins  are  long,  o-race- 
ful,  and  flowing ;  the  pectorals  are  falcate  and  acute,  the  first  rays  very 
strong,  and  thickly  set  with  short  fulcra,  which  give  it  a  serrate  appearance 
The  margins  of  the  other  fins  are  decorated  in  the  same  way,  so  that  tlie 
genus  may  be  recognized  by  even  a  fragment  of  a  fin.  The  fin  rays  are 
very  numerous  and  frequently  articulated,  the  joints  flattened  and  highly 
polished,  so  that  in  the  fossil  state  the  form  and  structure  are  often  beauti- 
fully preserved  and  never  foil  to  excite  admiration  in  the  observer. 

No  species  of  Catopierus  has  yet  been  found  in  the  Mesozoic  rocks  of 
the  Old  World,  or,  at  least,  no  fossil  fish  has  yet  been  identified  as  such  In 
eastern  America,  however,  during  the  latter  part  of  the  Triassic  age,  two  or 
three  species  were  exceedingly  numerous  in  the  lakes  and  estuaries  of  the 
Atlantic  coast.  In  New  Jersey  and  the  Connecticut  Valley  the  species  (^f 
Catopterus  are  fewer  than  of  Ischjpteriis,  and  the  number  of  individuals 
is  on  the  whole  less,  but  in  some  localities  the  two  genera  are  about  equally 
represented.  They  may  be  distinguislied  at  a  glance,  even  when  minor  dif- 
ferences are  not  shown,  by  the  position  of  the  dorsal  fin.  In  Ischyptems 
this  is  always  anterior  to  the  anal,  while  in  Catopterus  it  is  either  opposite 
or  posterior. 

Since  the  above  description  was  written  I  have  i-eceived  from  S.  W. 
Loper,  of  Durham,  Conn.,  some  specimens,  which  enable  me  to  add  some- 


52  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

thing  to  the  generic  description,  as  they  show  better  than  any  before  known 
the  under  and  upper  sides  of  the  head.  From  these  it  appears,  first,  that 
on  tlie  under  side  of  the  body  the  scales  extend  in  a  V-sliaped  point  consid- 
erably forward  of  the  pectoral  fins,  the  extreme  angle  being  under  the  center 
of  the  head.  Secondly,  the  apex  of  the  arch  formed  by  the  mandibles  is 
occupied  by  a  median  jugular  plate  similar  to  that  of  Amia;  its  surface  is 
covered  with  coarse,  rounded,  or  elongated  tubercles,  and  its  sides  are  notched 
to  receive  the  conical  extremities  of  the  interclavicles  (?)  by  which  it  is  bor- 
dered. These  are  covered  with  polished  raised  lines  with  a  radiated  arrange- 
ment at  the  extremity ;  they  are  often  broken  into  tubercles  of  enamel. 
Thirdly,  the  mandibles  are  narrow  and  slender  and,  like  the  other  bones  of 
the  head,  coarsely  granulated.  Fourthly,  the  under  side  of  the  pectoral 
fins  shows  about  ten  rays  which,  simple  at  base,  soon  divide  into  polished 
rods  articulated  only  toward  their  extremities ;  in  this  respect  showing  a 
structure  very  diff'erent  from  that  of  the  upper  surface,  in  which  the  articu- 
lations are  short  and  mimerous,  apparentl}^  metamorphosed  scales  ;  a  char- 
acter exhibited  tlu'oughout  the  unpaired  dorsal,  caudal,  and  anal  fins. 

The  bones  of  the  sides  and  top  of  the  head  are  not  quite  as  distinctly 
shown,  but  the  following  points  of  structure  can  apparently  be  made  out : 
The  cranial  bones  are  all  rather  coarsely  tuberculated ;  they  consist  of  a 
pair  of  large  polygonal  frontals,  which  are  notched  on  the  anterior  lower 
border  for  the  eye  orbit ;  the  ethmoid  is  pentagonal,  wedge-shaped  poste- 
riorly, the  point  interposed  between  the  diverging  lines  of  the  frontals  ;  the 
sides  are  straight,  slightly  inclined  toward  each  other  forward,  the  anterior 
margin  apparently  joining  the  premaxillaries,  which  are  united  to  form  a 
transversely  oval  bone  bristling  with  teeth — the  extremity  of  the  muzzle. 
The  posterior  angles  of  the  frontals  are  cut  to  receive  small  oblong  or  ovoid 
parietals.  The  middle  line  of  the  head  terminates  behind  by  a  triangular 
supraoccipital,  of  which  the  rounded  base  fits  into  a  sinus  in  the  frontals. 
On  either  side  of  the  supraoccipital  are  small,  polygonal  post  temporals,  of 
which  the  posterior  edge  is  joined  by  the  scales  of  the  back.  The  max- 
illaries  are  spatulate,  broadly  rounded  or  truncated  behind  and  anteriorly 
fitted  to  the  premaxillary.  The  orbit  is  formed  by  a  bony  ring,  but  the 
number  of  pieces  composing  it  is  not  shown. 


rossiL  FisoEs.  53 

The  operculum  is  semilunar,  anterior  margin  slightly  concave.  It  appar- 
ently consists  of  two  parts,  which  may  be  operculum  and  interoperculum,  but 
this  is  not  plainly  shown.  Joining  the  mandible  behind  seems  to  be  a 
small,  oblong  quadrate,  but  this  is  also  too  obscure  to  be  insisted  upon. 

All  the  specimens  which  show  the  structure  of  tlie  head  fairly  well 
belong  to  Catopterus  RedJielcK.  In  these  tlie  first  rows  of  scales  next  the 
head  and  in  the  gular  triangle  are  ornamented  with  tubercles  or  ridges, 
and  their  posterior  margins  are  notclied  or  toothed.  Like  tlie  joints  of  the 
fin  rays  tliese  are  brilliantly  polished,  and  confirm  what  has  been  said  in 
regard  to  the  great  beauty  of  tlie  external  decoration  of  this  elegant  fish. 

Catopterus  Redfieldi  Egerton. 

PI.  XV,  Figs.  1,  2,  3. 

Among  the  Triassic  fishes  taken  to  England  by  Sir  Charles  Lyell  and 
examined  by  Sir  Philip  Egerton  were  (1)  three  species  of  IschyiHerus  ;  (2) 
representatives  of  Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  R  ;  (.3)  Catopterus  Bedfieldi,  "  a 
broader  fish  than  the  preceding,  and  with  scales  not  so  long  in  proportion 
to  their  depth."  ^  This  is  all  the  description  we  have  of  this  species  ;  but  as 
there  are  found  at  Durham,  Conn.,  many  individuals  of  a  large  and  broad 
species  of  Catopterus,  and  one  to  which  the  name  ffracilis  is  certainly  inap- 
plicable, I  have  thought  it  probable  that  this  was  the  fish  referred  to  by 
Sir  Philip  Egerton,  and  I  take  pleasure  in  accepting  his  name,  and  by 
figures  and  more  complete  descriptions  securing  to  the  founder  of  the  genus 
the  dedication  of  its  finest  species.  This  may  be  characterized  as  follows  : 
Fish  of  large  size,  ten  inches  in  lengtli  by  three  in  breadth ;  long-ovoid  in 
outline,  broadest  between  ventral  and  pectoral  fins ;  head  small,  pointed, 
about  one-sixth  of  the  entire  length,  or  one  and  one-half  inches  long  and 
deep  ;  bones  of  the  head  all  thickly  set  with  enameled  tubercles ;  clavicles 
ornamented  with  raised  lines  and  elongated  tubercles  of  enamel;  dorsal  fin 
opposite  middle  of  anal ;  caudal  fin  forked,  though  less  deeply  than  in 
some  other  species  ;  anal  fin  broad,  not  reaching  the  base  of  caudal ;  ven- 
trals  midway  between  anals  and  pectorals  ;  scales  on  sides  near  head  oblong 

>  Quart.  Jour.  Geo!.  Soc.  London,  vol.  3,  1847,  p.  278. 


54  TEIASSIC  PISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

or  quadrate,  sometimes  twice  asliigli  as  long,  surface  partially  covered  with 
I'aised  lines  which  project  to  form  teeth  on  the  posterior  margin.  In  tlie 
middle  of  the  body  the  scales  are  longer  than  high,  plain  or  faintly  striated, 
and  beai-ing  one  or  more  posterior  teeth ;  scales  near  tail  rhomboidal, 
smooth ;  scales  of  median  line  of  back  transversely  oval  or  somewhat  poh'g- 
onal,  faintly  striated ;  teeth  numerous  on  premaxillaries,  maxillaries,  and 
mandibles,  from  one- eighth  to  one-quarter  of  an  inch  long,  conical,  sub- 
acute. The  average  size  of  the  fish  of  this  species  may  be  said  to  be  nine 
inches  in  length  by  three  in  breadth.  Tlie  general  form  and  proportions 
were  similar  to  those  of  our  shad  and  the  outlines  were  equally  elegant.  As 
we  always  find  the  fishes  of  this  species  lying  on  the  side,  we  may  infer 
that  they  were  laterally  compressed,  the  vertical  diameter  being  greater 
than  the  transverse. 

The  specimens  for  wliieh  Sir  Philip  Egerton  suggested  the  name  now 
given  were  from  Dorliam,  Conn.,  and  this  seems  to  be  the  special  home  of 
the  species,  though  it  has  apparently  been  found  at  otiier  localities  in  the 
Connecticut  Valley  and  in  New  Jersey.  Fully  one-half  of  all  the  fishes 
obtained  by  Mr.  Loper  at  Durham  belong  to  this  species,  and  he  has  fur- 
nished me  with  a  lai'ge  number  of  beautifully  preserved  specimens. 

As  in  all  the  species  of  the  genus  the  head  seems  to  have  been  largely 
cartilaginous,  and  as  a  consequence  is  often  defective  or  distorted  in  the 
fossils.  Occasionally,  however,  as  in  the  specimen  represented  in  Fig.  1, 
on  Plate  XV,  the  outline  of  the  head  is  accurately  shown  as  well  as  the  posi- 
tion of  the  eye  and  the  form  of  several  of  the  head  bones.  But  even  here 
they  are  somewhat  confused,  and  it  is  difficult  to  compare  bone  by  bone 
the  structure  of  the  head  with  that  of  the  palaioniscoid  fishes  of  the  Car- 
boniferous, Avith  which  tlie  relationship  has  been  supposed  to  be  close.  So 
far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  specimens  before  us  branchiostegals  are  want- 
ing, the  operculum  is  nearly  vertical,  and  the  eye  surrounded  by  a  bony 
ring  comjDOsed  of  two  pieces.  Unfortunately  the  head  bones  are  not  only 
generally  displaced,  but  they  are  covered  with  a  coating  which  obscures 
the  sutures,  the  matrix  clino'ing  to  the  granulated  surfaces  of  the  head 
bones  much  more  closely  than  to  the  polished  scales. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  55 

Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  R. 

P].  XVI,  Figs.  1,  2,  3. 

Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  R.  (Am.  Jour.  Sci.,  vol.  41,  1841,  p.  27)  Fish  elon- 
g'lited,  fusiform  ;  covered  with  rhomboidal  scales  of  medium  size.  Head  rather  small, 
one-fifth  of  the  whole  length,  aud  in  well  preserved  individuals  presents  a  flnely 
granulated  surface.  Operculum  lunate,  arched ;  teeth  small,  obtuse,  in  numerous 
rows;  back  nearly  straight,  slightly  arched,  lateral  line  nearly  parallel  with  back. 
All  the  fins,  including  the  caudal,  have  a  series  of  very  short  aud  close  raylets  begin- 
ning afc  a  point  just  anterior  to  the  fin  and  extending  from  the  first  or  anterior  ray  to 
its  extremity,  giving  a  serrated  appearance  to  the  anterior  border  of  the  fin.  In  the 
dorsal,  anal,  aud  caudal  fins  these  raylets  are  preceded  by  Lubricated,  pointed  scales, 
which  seem  gradually  to  pass  into  raylets;  the  pectoral  fin  is  long  and  narrow,  in- 
serted very  near  the  operculum;  the  first,  second,  or  third  rays  very  strong  and 
conspicuous,  the  remainder  more  slender;  all  the  rays  except  perhaps  the  first  are 
articulated  or  subdivided  toward  their  extremities;  number  of  primary  rays  ten  to 
twelve,  anterior  raylets  about  twenty.  Ventral  fins  small,  inserted  midway  between 
the  pectoral  and  anal,  rather  near  the  pectoral.  The  rays  are  all  slender,  about  eight 
iu  number,  anal  fin  large,  midway  between  ventral  fin  and  tail,  and  occupies  about 
one-fourth  of  the  distance  between  them  ;  the  rays  are  twenty-five  to  thirty  in  num- 
ber, very  slender  and  filiform  and  much  articulated ;  dorsal  fin  small  and  triangular, 
situated  opposite  the  posterior  part  of  the  anal ;  rays  ten  to  twelve,  decreasing  in  size 
from  the  first;  tail  forked,  slightly  heterocercal ;  the  scales  of  the  body  extending  to 
about  one-third  of  the  upper  lobe ;  lobes  long  and  acute;  caudal  rays  thirty  to  forty, 
finely  articulated  and  subdivided.  The  scales  of  the  anterior  part  of  the  body  are 
much  broader  than  those  of  the  posterior,  aud  iu  old  individuals  are  undulate  and 
subserrate  on  the  posterior  margins.  The  scales  become  more  ftnd  more  rhombic 
and  decrease  in  size  as  they  approach  the  tail ;  the  scales  of  the  dorsal  ridges  are  of 
an  irregular  polygonal  shape,  presenting  a  triangular  form  posteriorly,  and  are  much 
more  imbricated  than  those  of  the  sides.  One  or  two  very  large  scales  are  found  upon 
the  ventral  ridge  posterior  to  the  anal  tin.  There  are  usually  fifty-two  to  fifty-five 
rows  of  scales  iu  length  aud  fifteen  to  twenty  in  breadth  ;  length  of  fish  ten  inches. 
Found  at  Middletown,  Durham,  and  Southbury,  Conu.,  and  Boon  ton,  K  J. 

The  above  is  a  description  of  Catopterus  gracilis  contained  in  the  manu- 
script cop3^  of  the  Report  on  the  Fossil  Fishes  of  the  United  States,  read  to 
the  Association  of  American  Geologists  and  Naturalists  at  New  Haven, 
Conn.,  ill  1845,  by  J.  H.  Redfield,  and  kindly  communicated  to  me  by 
liim. 

A  briefer  and  earlier  description  of  the  genus  and  species,  with  a  figure 
of  C.  gracilis,  was  published  by  J.  H.  Redfield  in  volume  4,  page  37,  of  the 
Annals  of  the  New  York  Lyceum  of  Natural  History.  The  type  specimen 
was  then  in  possession  of  the  Yale  Natural  History  Society,  and  is  now  in 


56  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

the  cabinet  of  Yale  College.  Unfortunately  it  is  verticallv  crushed  and  nar- 
rowed, and  gives  a  very  imperfect  idea  of  the  species  to  which  it  belongs. 
After  examining  the  specimen  I  am  convinced  that  it  sliould  be  associated 
with  the  broad  form,  for  which  the  name  C.  Itecljieldi  was  suggested  by  Sir 
Philip  Egerton.  That  fish  in  its  normal  condition  has  nearly  the  outline 
of  the  shad,  and  with  a  length  of  ten  inches  has  frequently  a  breadth  of 
three ;  the  name  Cato})tcrus  cjracilis  is  therefore  inappropriate,  and  conveys  a 
false  impre.ssion.  If  the  specimen  figured  were  accepted  as  the  type  it 
would  be  better  to  consider  it  a  synonym  of  C.  Redfieldi  and  abandon  the 
name  C.  gracilis.  But  there  is  a  species  of  Catopterus  which 'is  much  more 
slender  than  C.  Redfieldi,  and  of  this  numerous  specimens  Avere  in  the 
hands  of  the  Messrs.  Redfield,  and  doubtless  influenced  them  in  selecting 
the  specific  name  gracilis.  It  is  certain  that  specimens  of  this  fish  served  as 
a  basis,  in  part  at  least,  for  J.  II.  Redfield's  description,  and  it  is  even 
doubtful  whether  any  good  specimen  of  C.  Redfieldi  was  ever  examined  by 
either  W.  C.  or  J.  H.  Redfield.  They  have  mostly  been  procured  from 
Durham,  Conn.,  by  Mr.  S.  W.  Loper,  in  the  last  ten  years.  From  these 
facts  it  has  seemed  to  me  less  liable  to  produce  confusion  and  to  do  more 
complete  justice  to  Messrs..  Redfield  to  retain  the  name  gracilis  for  the  more 
slender  fish,  to  which  the  description  of  J.  H.  Redfield  is  not  inappropriate, 
while  it  is  not  applicable  to  the  broader  form  to  which  the  specific  name 
Redfieldi  has  been  given. 

I  will  only  add  to  the  description  of  J.  H.  Redfield  that  Ccdopterus 
gracilis  is  always  fusiform,  often  quite  slender,  the  head  never  more  than 
one-fifth  of  the  entire  length,  the  fins  relatively  long  and  narrow,  the  body 
widest  at  the  ventrals,  where  it  is  sometimes,  thougli  rarely,  an  inch  and  a 
half  in  width,  and  behind  the  dorsal  often  not  much  more  than  half  an  inch 
wide ;  the  scales  are  quadrate  near  the  head,  oblong  in  the  middle,  and 
rhomboid  at  the  posterior  extremity  of  the  body.  They  are  sometimes  finely 
serrate  on  the  posterior  margins,  never  deeply  toothed  as  in  C.  Redfieldi, 
and  the  surface  in  all  the  specimens  I  have  seen  is  essentially  plain.  On 
PI.  XVI,  Fig.  1,  is  represented  an  entire  fish  of  this  species,  and  one  of  the 
broader  forms,  while  Fig.  3  shows  the  posterior  half  of  the  body  of  one  of 
the  more  slender  individuals.     The  difference  of  form  between  this  and 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  57 

the  preceding  species  will  be  seen  by  comparing  the  latter  figure  with  that 

of  a  corresponding  portion  of  tlie  body  of  C.  Bedfiddl  given  on  PI.  XV, 

Fig.  3. 

Catopterus  minor,  n.  sp. 

n.  XVII,  Figs.  1-4. 
Fishes  robust,  fusiform,  five  to  six  inches  in  length  by  one  and  a  half 
inches  in  diameter  at  widest  part,  which  is  immediately  behind  the  pectoral 
fins ;  head  depressed,  conical,  pointed,  all  head  bones  covered  with  coarse 
granulations  of  enamel;  clavicles  marked  with  strong  longitudinal  plica- 
tions; fins  triangular  or  falcate,  sharp-pointed;  caudal  deeply  forked,  lobes 
gracefully  arched,  acute;  dorsal  and  anal  fins  opposite;  radial  formula  as 
follows:  Pectorals— fulcra  twenty-seven,  rays  six;  ventrals— fulcra  eight- 
een, rays  five;  anal — fulcra  twenty-four,  rays  twenty  long  and  three 
shorter  on  anterior  margin;  dorsal — fulcra  three,  rays  fifteen;  caudal  — 
rays  thirty  long,  three  shorter  above  and  below,  thirty-six  in  all;  lower 
lobe — fulcra  thirty,  with  three  large  fulcral  scales  at  base ;  upper  lobe — 
fulcra  eighteen,  with  three  fulcral  scales,  which  are  succeeded  forward  by 
four  large  peltate  scales  on  dorsal  line,  reaching  half  way  to  base  of  dorsal 
fin;  scales  quadrangular,  nearly  uniform  in  size;  on  the  lateral  line  forty- 
two,  which  are  marked  by  mucous  tubes;  about  twenty-four  in  the  vertical 
rows  on  the  side  near  the  head;  those  of  the  median  line  ovoid  or  polygonal; 
surface  of  all  the  scales  on  the  anterior  portion  of  the  body  ornamented 
with  raised  lines;  on  the  nape  and  abdomen  part  of  the  scales  carry  one 
or  two  raised  lines  parallel  with  the  margin  and.  converghig  to  the  pos- 
terior point;  on  the  side  near  the  head  all  the  scales  are  obliquely  trav- 
ersed by  raised  and  often  beaded  lines,  which  terminate  in  acute  denticu- 
lations  of  the  posterior  margin.  From  Durham,  Conn.,  I  have  obtained, 
throuo-h  Mr.  Loper,  quite  a  number  of  small  specimens  of  Catopterus,  which 
are  of  nearly  uniform  size —about  five  inches  in  length  by  one  and  a 
quarter  in  width — all  lying  partly  upon  the  abdomen  and  showing  the  line 
of  median  scales  upon  the  back.  This  proves  that  the  body  was  round, 
or  perhaps  somewhat  flattened  vertically;  the  head  is  small,  depressed, 
pointed;  the  scales  of  the  posterior  portion  of  the  body  highly  polished; 
those  of  the  anterior  ornamented  with  raised  lines  and  having  the  posterior 


58  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

margins  coarsely  denticulate ;  the  fins  are  of  moderate  size,  ver j  graceful 
in  their  outlines  and  beautifully  constructed  and  preserved.  On  tlie  whole, 
these  are  the  handsomest  fossil  fishes  of  which  I  have  any  knowledge. 

I  have  been  somewhat  in  doubt  whether  they  may  not  be  regarded  as 
the  young  of  C.  BcdfiekU,  with  which  they  are  associated  and  which  they  in 
some  points  resemble,  but  they  present  some  distinct  characters  which  the}- 
have  in  common  among  themselves,  such  as  tlie  pointed  head,  the  round  and 
vertically  flattened  body,  the  ornamented  scales  varying  comparatively  little 
in  size,  and  the  opposite  position  of  tlie  anal  and  dorsal  fins.  These  char- 
acters have  seemed  to  me  snflficient  to  make  this  little  group  of  fishes  the 
representatives  of  a  distinct  species.  The  relationship  of  these  fishes  to  that 
which  I 'have  called  Catopterus  ornatus  is  close;  the  size,  form,  position,  and 
other  features  of  the  body  are  the  same,  the  only  difference  being  the  pecul- 
iar ornamentation  which  covers  most  of  the  scales  of  C.  ornatus,  and  is  only 
faintly  indicated  in  a  very  few  scales  of  some  individuals  of  C.  minor.  The 
radiating  lines  which  mark  the  side  scales  in  the  present  species  are  wanting 
or  but  faintly  indicated  in  C  ornatus,  but  we  have  some  traces  of  them  in 
the  much  larger  fishes  which  I  have  supposed  to  represent  C.  Redjieldi. 

The  theory  that  these  fishes  constitute  a  distinct  species  of  Catopterus  is 
confirmed  by  the  fact  that,  so  far  as  at  present  known,  they  are  found  at  no 
other  locality  than  Durham,  Conn.,  although  the  larger  species  of  the  genus 
are  abundant  at  Boonton,  and  are  sometimes  met  with  at  Sunderland. 

Catopterus  genatus,  n.  sp. 

PI.  XVIII,  Figs.  3,  3a,  3b. 

Fishes  fusiform,  fi^'e  inches  long  by  one  and  a  quarter  inches  wide  at 
the  broadest  part ;  head  bones  unknown ;  fins  all  delicate ;  anal  opposite 
dorsal ;  scales  rhomboidal  or  elliptical,  of  nearly  uniform  size,  relatively 
large,  external  surface  ornamented  by  raised  lines  parallel  with  the  border 
and  terminating  in  the  posterior  point  or  angle ;  along  the  dorsal  median 
line  is  a  row  of  ovoid  scales  somewhat  larger  than  the  others,  marked  by 
the  usual  raised  lines  parallel  with  the  margin,  and  in  addition  a  single 
raised  line,  sometimes  beaded,  which  passes  from  tlie  center  of  the  scale  to 
the  posterior  point.     On  tlio  sides  near  the  head  the  scales,  which  all  show 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  59 

more  or  less  of  the  concentric  lines,  are  also  faintly  marked  with  radiating, 
beaded  lines  terminating  in  sharp  teeth  at  the  posterior  border. 

Only  a  single  specimen  of  tliis  little  fish  has  yet  been  found.  It  has 
tlie  form  and  size  of  Catopterus  minor,  but  differs  from  that  and  all  other 
species  known,  in  the  peculiar  and  pronounced  ornamentation  of  the  scales. 
Most  of  these  are  decorated  with  strong  raised  lines  parallel  with  the  mar- 
gins and  running  to  the  posterior  point,  which  is  often  somewhat  prolonged. 
On  the  sides  near  the  head  this  ornamentation  is  joined  to  or  superseded  b}^ 
the  radiating  raised  beaded  lines  terminating  in  teeth,  often  though  not 
always  seen  in  Catoptcrus  Redfieldi  and  Catojiterus  minor.  The  body  must 
have  been  round  or  somewhat  flattened  verticallv,  since  it  lies  on  the  ab- 
domen  with  the  middle  line  of  the  back  uppermost,  the  position,  generally 
assumed  by  the  fishes  which  I  have  designated  by  the  name  of  C.  minor. 
The  general  aspect  of  these  fishes  is  so  similar,  that  I  have  been  inclined  to 
consider  them  as  varieties  of  the  same  species,  but  the  ornamentation  of  the 
scales  in  C.  ornafus  is  so  marked,  that  I  do  not  feel  authorized  to  unite  them 
without  better  evidence  than  I  now  possess. 

The  ornamentation  described  above  is  on  the  same  plan  with  that  of 
the  scales  of  Ccelacanthus  elegans  from  the  Coal  Measures,  but  the  number  of 
raised  and  converging  lines  is  less  in  the  Triassic  fish. 

Figs.  Sa  and  3&  represent  the  scales  enlarged  to  show  the  ornamenta- 
tion, the  former  the  ovate  scales  of  the  dorsal  line,  the  latter  the  rhomboidal 
scales  of  the  sides. 

Catopterus  anguillifoemis  W.  C.  R. 
PI.  XVIII,  Fig.  5. 

W.  C.  Redfield  describes  a  species  of  Catopterus  in  the  following  words:' 

Catopterus  ancjxdTtiformia  W.  C.  R.  (Eel  sbapecl  Catopterus).— This  remarkable 
species,  as  liitlicrto  found,  is  from  seven  to  nearly  ten  inches  iu  length;  width,  half  to 
three-fourths  of  an  inch.  It  has  a  finely-forked  and  extended  caudal  fin  of  delicate 
structure;  a  well-extended  dorsal;  and  all  the  fins  are  fringed  with  the  fine  raylets 
which  pertain  to  this  genus.  The  impressions  of  the  fins  are  usually  but  faintly  visi- 
ble, owing,  probably,  to  their  delicate  structure.  The  scales  are  equally  indistinct, 
and  the  impression  of  the  head  is  seldom  visible. 

Found  at  Westfield  and  Middletowu,  Conn.;  Boonton,  N.  J.;  and,  as  I  have  been 
informed,  at  Sunderland,  Mass. 

'Amer.  Jour.  Sci.,  vol.  41,  1841,  p.  27. 


60  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS 

In  llie  collection  of  fossil  fishes  left  by  W.  C.  Redfield,  and  among- 
hundreds  of  specimens  I  have  examined  from  Boonton,  Durham,  Smider- 
land,  and  elsewhere,  I  have  seen  but  two  which  correspond  with  this  de- 
scription. These  are  from  Durham,  and  are  contained  in  a  shale  that  is 
quite  metamorphosed,  and  in  which  the  impressions  of  the  fossils  are  indis- 
tinct. They  are  very  defective  in  details  of  structure,  but  it  is  liardly  pos- 
sible to  avoid  tlie  conclusion  that  they  represent  a  fish  diff"erent  from  any 
other  known.  One  of  these  is  represented  on  PI.  XVIII,  Fig.  5 ;  the 
other  is  larger,  though  scarcely  wider,  and  the  outline  is  less  complete. 

It  would  be  somewhat  surprising  if  it  should  prove  true  that  in  the 
same  locality  lived  two  species  of  the  same  genus  differing  in  form  as 
much  as  these  slender  eel-like  fishes  differ  from  Catopterus  Bedfieldi,  which, 
when  mature,  was  relatively  as  broad  as  a  shad.  It  is  therefore  quite  pos- 
sible that  when  better  specimens  of  the  slender  fish  shall  be  found  they  will 
present  points  of  structure  which  will  require  reference  to  a  new  genus. 
So  far  as  can  be  observed,  however,  they  exhibit  the  characters  of  Catop- 
teriis ;  the  tail  is  deeply  forked,  and  the  caudal,  like  the  pectorals,  is  bor- 
dered by  the  fine  fulcra  so  characteristic  of  that  genus;  so  that,  till  conflict- 
ing evidence  is  found,  we  must  follow  W.  C.  Redfield  in  the  name  he  has 
given.  Tlie  absence  of  all  details  of  structure  in  these  fossil  fishes  is  proof 
of  great  delicacy  of  organization,  such  as  we  find  in  the  young  of  most 
fishes,  but  the  great  length  of  these  specimens  forbids  tlie  inference  that 
they  are  young  fishes,  since  no  traces  of  larger  individuals  with  anything 
like  the  same  proportions  have  been  discovered. 

Catopterus  parvulcs  W.  C.  R. 

PI.  XVI,  Figs.  4,  5. 

The  description  given  of  this  species  by  Mr.  Redfield  will  be  found  in 
the  article'  so  frequently  cited  on  the  preceding  pages.     It  reads  as  follows: 

Catopterus  parvulus:  W.  0,  E.  (Little  Catopterus). — This  small  and  delicate  fossil  is 
but  obscurely  developed  in  the  few  si)ecimens  which  have  been  obtained.  The  ex- 
tremely fine  spread  caudal  and  other  fins,  with  their  slender  frontal  raylets,  serve  to 

I  Am.  Jour.  Sci.,  vol.  41, 1841. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  61 

mark  it  as  a  member  of  the  geuus,  although  these  raylets  are  fewer  iu  uumber  and  of 
greater  and  more  unequal  length  than  in  the  other  species.     In  the  few  specimens 
obtained  the  caudal  extremity  is  commonly  found  iu  a  bent  or  half-twisted  position. 
Found  at  Middlefield,  Goon.,  Sunderland,  Mass.,  and  Boontou,  N.  J. 

Ill  our  excavations  at  Boonton,  where  we  obtained  several  hundred 
fishes  in  better  or  worse  condition,  a  few  dehcate,  imperfect,  and  usually 
distorted  specimens  were  found  whicli  correspond  fairly  well  with  the  above 
description,  and  yet  it  has  seemed  to  me  that  they  are  probably  the  young 
of  the  larger  species  of  Catopterus;  if  not,  the  species  can  only  be  satisfac- 
torily defined  from  material  more  perfect  than  any  I  have  yet  seen. 

These  little  fishes  are  generally  from  two  and  a  half  to  four  inches  in 
length  and  very  imperfectly  preserved;  that  is,  the  scales  are  scarcely  visi- 
ble and  all  details  of  head  structure  are  wanting.  The  fins,  especially  the 
caudal,  are  sometimes  fairly  well  shown,  and  consist  of  numerous  extremely 
fine  parallel  rays  bordered  by  fulcra  of  corresponding  delicacy.  These 
prove  that  they  belong  to  the  genus  Catopteriis,  but  their  minute  size  and 
their  delicacy  of  structure  are  signs  of  immaturity,  and  it  is  therefore  impos- 
sible to  affirm  that  they  constitute  a  distinct  species.  It  may  be  said,  how- 
ever, that  with  these  little  fishes  somewhat  larger  ones  are  found  which 
exhibit  nearly  equal  delicacy  of  structure.  They  are  from  four  to  six  inches 
in  length,  with  a  maximum  width  of  perhaps  an  inch  near  the  head.  The 
fins  are  sometimes  well  shown,  but  the  scales  are  almost  invisible.  Some- 
thing of  their  indistinctness  may  be  due  to  decomposition  or  to  imperfect 
fossilization,  but  the  fin  rays  are  much  more  slender  than  in  the  smaller 
individuals  of  Catopterus  found  at  Durham,  which  I  have  designated  by  the 
name  Catopterus  minor.  Hence  I  must  conclude  that  they  are  not  specifi- 
cally identical  with  these.  For  the  present  it  may  be  perhaps  as  well  to  let 
these  small,  delicate,  and  imperfectl}^  preserved  specimens  of  Catopterus 
stand  for  Redfield's  species  C.  parvulus,  but  it  is  quite  possible  they  will 
prove  to  be  the  young  of  C.  gracilis. 

Genus  DICTYOPYGE  Egerton. 

Small  heterocercal  ganoids;  body  fusiform;  head  siiiall,  conical,  one- 
fifth  the  entire  length;  muzzle  rounded,  obtuse;  opercula  large,  semicircu- 


62  TRIASSIG  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

lar;  clavicles  coarsely  plaited;  bones  of  the  head  all  granulated;  scales  rliom- 
boidal,  smooth,  those  of  the  lateral  line  strongly  marked,  oblong,  some- 
what rounded  above  and  below,  emarginate  behind,  showing  conspicuous 
mucous  pores  or  tubes;  scales  of  the  under  side  of  the  body  ver}^  numerous, 
narrow,  elongated  longitudinally;  pectoral  and  ventral  fins  small;  dorsal  fin 
opposite  to  or  a  little  in  advance  of  the  anal;  caudal  fin  forked;  anal  fin 
broad,  rounded,  consisting  of  twenty-two  long  and  two  short  rays,  of  which 
the  central  ones  are  broadest  and  are  supported  by  strong  interspinous 
bones;  anterior  rays  of  all  the  fins  set  with  short,  oblique,  obtuse,  polished 
fulcra.  At  the  base  of  the  caudal  fin,  above  and  below,  these  are  succeeded 
by  large,  ovate,  pointed,  fiilcral  scales,  which  reacli  forward  to  the  dorsal 
and  anal  fins. 

The  type  specimens  of  Dictijopyge  were  obtained  by  Sir  Charles  Lyell 
at  Blackheath,  Va.,  and  were  described  by  Sir  Philip  Egerton.^  This  fish 
was  previously  described  by  W.  C.  Redfield  under  the  uinme  of  Catoptems 
macrurus  in  the  American  Journal  of  Science,  (vol.  41,  1841,  p.  27),  but  Sir 
Philip  Egerton,  as  cited  by  Lyell,  considered  it  distinct  from  the  genus  Catop- 
teriis,  because  "the  dorsal  fin  is  more  strictly  opposite  to  the  anal  than  in 
Catoxiterus  Bedjieldi,"  and  because,  "having  a  homocercal  tail,  it  can  not  be 
comprehended  in  it."  Mr.  Redfield  did  not  accept  the  genus  Dictyopyfje  of 
Egerton,  because,  as  he  said,  Catopterus  macrurus  was  really  no  less  hetero- 
cercal  than  the  other  species  of  the  genus,  and  with  the  other  common  char- 
acters the  slight  difference  in  the  position  of  the  fins  had  in  his  judgment  only 
a  .specific  value.  There  is  something  to  be  said  on  both  sides  of  this  ques- 
tion, and  perhaps  it  cannot  be  settled  until  we  have  more  material;  but  by  a 
careful  study  of  that  now  in  hand  I  have  been  inclined  to  accept  the  genus 
Dktyopyge.  In  Catopterus  macrurus  of  Redfield  the  operculaare  larger,  con- 
stituting one-half  a  circle,  the  scales  of  the  under  side  of  the  body  are  much 
more  numerous,  the  dorsal  fin  is  more  in  advance,  the  anal  fin  broader, 
larger,  and  rounder,  and  the  interha?.mal  spines  by  which  it  is  supported 
are  much  stronger,  and  finally  the  tail  is  less  forked  than  in  tlie  other  species 
of  Catopterus.  In  my  specimens,  as  well  as  in  those  figured  by  Sir  Philip 
Egerton,  the  dorsal  fin  is  decidely  in  advance  of  the  anal,  and  both  are  so 

•Quart.  Jour.  Gcol.  Soc.  Loudou,  vol.  3,  1850,  p.  275. 


FOSSIL  FISHES,  63 

large  and  round  as  to  give  a  pecidiar  aspect,  which  will  strike  the  most  casual 
observer.  On  the  otlier  hand,  tlie  character  of  the  posterior  end  of  the  body- 
is  precisely  the  same  as  in  Catopferus,  and  the  anterior  margin  of  each  fin  is 
set  with  the  numerous  divergent  fulcra  which  are  so  characteristic  of  that 
genus ;  but  in  the  species  under  consideration  they  are  more  numerous, 
shorter,  blunter,  and  more  divergent.  Hence  we  must  conclude  that  if  this 
fish  represents  a  different  genus  it  is  still  very  closely  allied  to  Cat02)terus. 

Sir  Philip  Egerton,  as  cited  by  LyelV  alludes  to  fragments  of  another 
and  larger  species  of  Bidyopjge  from  Chesterfield  County,  Va.  This  I  sup- 
pose to  be  the  same  fish  as  that  represented  by  some  fragments  I  have  from 
that  region.  It  was  a  much  larger  fish  than  D.  macrura  and  the  divisions  of 
the  fin  rays  were  marked  by  several  raised  lines,  constituting  a  peculiar 
style  of  ornamentation. 

Johannes  Striiver  in  1864  published^  a  notice  of  the  Fossil  Fishes  of 
the  Keuper,  of  Coburg,  Saxony,  in  wliich  he  describes  and  figures  a  spe- 
cies of  Bictyopyge  (D.  socialis)  and  reviews  the  structure  and  relations  of 
the  genus.  With  this  notice  he  also  publishes  a  figure  and  (p.  305)  a  de- 
scription of  another  fish  associated  with  the  last,  Semionotus  Bergeri  Ag.,  to 
which  I  have  alluded  elsewhere.  These  figures  and  descriptions  are  of 
special  interest  for  comparison  with  the  fishes  of  our  American  Trias;  for 
it  is  probable  that,  if  a  few  good  specimens  of  Ischypterus  and  Catopterus  had 
come  into  the  hands  of  Agassiz,  Berger,  Egerton,  or  Striiver  previous  to  the 
publications  of  Semionotus,  Catopterus,  and  Bictyopyge,  Iscliypterus  would 
liave  been  united  with  Semionotus  and  Bictyopyge  socialis  have  been  included 
in  Catopterus.  Judging  from  Striiver's  figures  it  is  impossible  to  designate 
any  important  character  by  which  these  fishes  could  be  genericall}^  dis- 
tinguished. Semionotus  Bergeri  lias  a  dorsal  fin  which  is  a  little  broader 
than  that  of  any  of  our  species  of  Iscliypterus,  but  in  all  other  respects,  even 
to  the  row  of  erect  and  pointed  scales  on  the  back,  there  is  the  greatest 
similarity  between  the  two  genera ;  nor  are  there  any  differences  to  which 
we  can  give  generic  value  between  Bictyopyge  socialis  of  the  Coburg-Keuper 
Saudstein  and  Catopterus  gracilis  of  Redfield.     It  is  true  that  in  the  former 

^  Quart.  Jour.  Geol.  Soo.  Loudon,  vol.  ;!,  p.  277. 

2  Zeitschrift  Deutscb.  geol.  Gesellscliaft,  Berlin,  vol.  IC,  18(34,  p.  303-330. 


64  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AISTD  TLANTS. 

the  dorsal  fin  is  exactly  opposite  the  anal,  while  in  the  latter  the  first  rays 
of  the  dorsal  are  opposite  tlie  middle  of  the  anal,  but  in  another  species  of 
Catopterus  {C.  minor  N.)  the  position  of  the  fins  is  exactly  that  of  D.  socialis ; 
while  in  the  Virginia  species,  which  was  taken  by  Egerton  as  the  type  of  his 
genus  Dictyopuffe,  the  dorsal  fin  is  sensibly  anterior  to  the  anal ;  so  that  this 
character  can  not  be  considered  as  diagnostic.  Another  distinction  which 
Striiver  makes  between  Catopterus  macrurus  (which  he  erroneously  names 
macropterus  throughout  his  article)  and  Didijopyge  socialis,  viz.  "fulcra  der 
Schwanzflossen  ziemlich  gross"  and  "fulcra  sammtlicher  Flossen  fein,''  does 
not  hold  good,  for  the  fulcra  are  quite  as  fine  in  the  Virginia  as  in  the  Co- 
burg  specimens.  The  only  difi^erences  which  I  can  specify  between  our 
commonest  species  of  Catopterus  and  Dictyopyge  socialis  are  the  broader 
operculum,  the  narrower  scales  of  the  belly,  and  the  less  deeply  forked  tail 
of  the  latter.  In  these  characters  Dictyopyge  macrurus  and  D.  socialis  are  dis- 
tinguished from  all  the  species  of  Catopterus  found  in  New  Jersey  or  in 
Connecticut;  and,  as  I  have  said  elsewhere,  these  may  perhaps  afford  a 
raison  d'etre  for  Dlctyopyge. 

DiCTYOPYGE    MACRURA    Egerton. 

PI.  XVIII,  Figs.  1,  2. 

Catopterus  macrurus  W.  C.  R.,  Am.  Jour.  Sci.,  vol.  41,  1841,  p.  27. 

Bictyopyge  macrura  Egertou,  Quart.  Jour.  Geol.  Soc,  London,  vol.  6,  1850,  p.  4. 

Fishes  small,  fusiform;  head  rather  small,  surface  finely  granulated ;  scales  of 
medium  size,  those  of  the  sides  and  back  square  or  slightly  rhomboidal,  those  on  the 
under  side  of  body  very  numerous  and  narrow;  pectoral  fins  of  medinm  size,  primary 
rays  seven  or  eight,  anterior  raylets  very  tine,  short,  and  close,  over  forty  in  number; 
ventrals  small,  triangular,  and  elongated,  rays  eight  or  nine,  fulcra  about  thirty ;  anal 
very  large,  quadrate,  sometimes  reaching  as  far  as  base  of  caudal,  rays  over  thirty  in 
luimber;  tail  forked,  very  long,  acute,  and  spreading,  lower  lobe  longest,  rays  thirty- 
five  to  forty,  closely  articulated  and  toward  the  extremity  finely  subdivided.  Length 
five  inches,  breadth  one  and  a  quarter  inches. 

The  above  description  is  abbreviated  from  that  of  J.  H.  Redfield.  Fur- 
ther details  will  be  found  in  the  discussion  of  the  generic  relations. 

Up  to  the  present  tivne  no  specimens  of  this  fish  have  been  fomid  else- 
where than  in  the  Richmond  coal  basin.     There  it  is  locally  very  abun- 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  65 

dant ;  one  slab  of  shale  formerly  belonging  to  the  Lyceum  of  Natural  His- 
tory, though  scarcely  more  than  a  foot  square,  carried  impressions  of  over 
twenty  individuals. 

Genus  PTYCHOLEPIS  Ag. 

Fusiform,  tile-scaled  ganoids  of  moderate  size,  from  six  to  twelve  inches 
in  length ;  head  pointed ;  fins  all  delicate  and  provided  with  minute  fulcra, 
dorsal  triangular  in  outline  placed  near  the  center  of  the  back,  pectoral  fins 
pointed,  anal  fin  nearer  to  the  tail  than  to  the  ventrals,  caudal  but  slightly 
heterocercal ;  the  posterior  extremity  of  the  body  oblique,  longer,  and 
rounded  on  the  upper  side;  scales  quadrangular,  generally  much  longer 
than  high,  and  traversed  by  furrows  which  divide  the  surface  into  ridges  or 
folds  that  suggested  the  name ;  the  posterior  margin  of  the  scales  notched 
by  the  extremities  of  the  furrows;  head  bones  all  highly  ornamented  Avith 
raised  lines  of  enamel ;  teeth  small,  conical,  acute. 

Agassiz  first  described  this  genus  (1843)  from  specimens  found  in  the 
Lias  at  Boll,  in  Wiirtemberg.  The  type  he  called  Ptycholepis  Bollensis} 
This  was  a  fish  about  a  foot  in  length,  which  has  been  met  with  in  England 
and  at  several  places  on  the  Continent  of  Europe.  In  1852  Sir  Philip  Eger- 
ton  described  another  and  much  smaller  species,  which  he  called  P.  minor, 
obtained  from  the  Lias  at  Barrow-on-Soar.^  In  1853  he  described  and  fig- 
ured still  another  species  very  much  broader  than  the  last,  and  called  it  P. 
curtus?  The  specimen  upon  which  this  description  was  founded  was  from 
the  Lias  near  Lyme  Regis. 

In  1878  S.  W.  Loper,  of  Durham,  Conn,  found  in  the  Triassic  beds, 
which  have  yielded  so  many  fishes  at  that  locality,  several  specimens  of  still 
another  species  of  PtycJiolepis,  which  came  into  my  possession  and  were  de- 
scribed in  the  Annals  of  the  New  York  Academy  of  Sciences,  volume  1, 
p.  127.  Since  that  time  perhaps  a  dozen  more  or  less  complete  individuals 
of  this  species  have  been  obtained  at  Durham  by  Mr.  Loper,  all  of  which 
have  passed  under  my  observation.  They  vary  considerably  in  size,  the 
largest  being  eight  inches  long  by  two  and  a  half  broad;  the  smallest  abofit 

1  Poiss.  Foss.,  vol.  3,  p.  107,  pi.  LVIII  bis. 

-Mem.  Geol.  Survey,  United  Kiugdom,  British  Organic  Remains,  Decade  6,  185'^,  pi.  VII. 
'Ibid.,  Decade  8,  18.5.5,  pi.  VIH. 
MON  SIV 5 


68  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

four  inches  long ;  most  of  tliem  being  about  six  inches  long  by  one  and  a 
quarter  inches  wide.  Possibly  these  specimens  represent  more  than  one 
species,  but  the  material  yet  found  scarcely  suffices  for  the  accurate  defini- 
tion of  more  than  one,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  differences  they 
exhibit  are  only  those  of  age.  I  give  below  the  detailed  description  of  this 
species  taken  with  slight  modification,  from  the  paper  referred  to  above. 

Ptycholepis  Maeshii  Newb. 
PI.  XIX,  Figs.  1,  2,  2a. 

Fish  eight  inches  or  more  in  length  by  two  and  a  quarter  in  breadth, 
fusiform,  robust ;  head  pointed,  contained  four  and  a  half  times  in  the  en- 
tire length ;  all  the  bones  of  the  head  marked  with  strong  raised  lines,  those 
of  the  upper  surface  somewhat  radiate;  on  the  opercula,  maxillaries,  man- 
dibles, and  gular  plates  more  or  less  uudulately  parallel  and  forked.  The 
dorsal  fin  is  of  medium  size  and  placed  near  the  center  of  the  back ;  the 
anal  is  set  far  back,  reaching  nearly  to  the  caudal;  caudal  small,  forked, 
the  scales  and  vertebral  column  reaching  distinctly  into  the  upper  lobe. 
The  scales  on  the  anterior  portion  of  the  body  are  two  or  three  times  as 
long  as  high,  and  are  marked  with  several  longitudhial  furrows  and  raised 
lines.  In  the  middle  and  posterior  portions  they  are  five  or  six  times  as 
long  as  high,  and  are  traversed  by  a  superficial  furrow,  w.hich  generally 
reaches  from  the  anterior  end  half  or  two-thirds  the  length  and  is  again 
resumed  on  the  posterior  margin;  by  this  the  extremities  of  the  scales  are 
forked.  On  the  anterior  portion  of  tlie  abdominal  surface  the  scales  are 
exceedingly  narrow,  acute,  and  spine-like.  Vertebral  column  partially 
ossified. 

On  comparing  our  fish  with  the  figure  and  description  of  P.  Bolhnsis 
Ag.  it  will  be  seen  that  it  differs  from  that  species  in  the  position  of  the 
dorsal  fin  (which  is  placed  more  anteriorly),  in  the  details  of  the  scales  and 
head  markings,  and  in  the  greater  degree  to  which  the  tail  is  vertebrated 
and  the  spinal  column  ossified.  In  P.  Bollensis  the  scales  are  covered  with 
fine,  simple,  parallel  ridges  of  enamel,  but  in  P.  Marslui  the  ridges  are 
broadei',  fewer,  and  are  forked.  From  P.  minor  Egerton  our  species  is 
easily  distinguished  by  its  greater  size,  narrower  and  notched  scales,  and 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  67 

more  vertebrated  tail.  From  P.  curtus  Egerton  it  differs  in  its  more  elon- 
gated form,  in  the  plication  of  the  scales,  and  the  more  heterocercal  tail. 

The  discovery  in  our  Triassic  rocks  of  a  species  of  Ftycliolepis,  a  genus 
before  found  only  in  tlie  Lias  of  Europe,  might  seem  to  open  up  again  the 
long-debated  question  of  the  age  of  the  New  Red  Sandstone  of  the  Atlantic 
States,  but  in  fact  it  does  not  seriously  invalidate  the  conclusion,  based  on 
other  evidence,  that  this  series  of  strata  is  the  equivalent  of  the  Rhsetic  beds 
of  Europe.  Tlie  fish  now  described  is  a  new  species,  and  has  the  vertebral 
column  prolonged  to  a  greater  distance  into  the  upper  lobe  of  the  tail  than 
its  Liassic  representatives.  Without  attaching  too  much  importance  to  this 
character,  we  may  fairly  infer  that  it  indicates  a  little  earlier  date. 

The  two  specimens  now  figured  are  perhaps  about  the  average  in  size 
of  all  those  yet  found,  but  I  have  one  which  is  eight  inches  long  by  two 
inches  wide;  another  specimen  is  only  four  inclies  long  by  five-eighths  of 
an  inch  wide.  As  a  whole  our  specimens  are  much  smaller  than  the  average 
of  those  of  P.  BoUensis.  P.  curtus,  of  Egerton,  from  the  Lias  of  England, 
is  no  longer  than  our  specimens,  but  it  is  much  more  robust. 

I  have  dedicated  this  species  to  Prof.  0.  C.  Marsh,  of  Yale  College. 
All  the  specimens  yet  known  have  been  obtained  by  S.  W.  Loper.  at  Dur- 
ham, Conn. 

Genus  ACENTROPHORUS  Traquair. 

Fi'om  the  Triassic  rocks  at  Chicopee  Falls,  Mass.,  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  little  fishes  have  been  obtained  which  are  distinctly  different  from 
any  others  found  in  tliis  country.  Their  affinities  with  Iscliypterus  are  so 
close,  that  I  was  for  a  long  time  disposed  to  consider  tliem  as  belonging  to 
a  species  of  that  genus.  The  structure  is  essentially  the  same  throughout, 
with  the  exception  that  the  crest  of  spinous  scales  which  crowns  the  dorsal 
arch  in  Isclipyterus  is  here  wanting  and  the  median  line  is  marked  by  a 
sei'ies  of  round  or  oval  scales  a  little  larger  than  the  quadrangular  ones 
which  accompany  them  on  either  side.  The  body  is  fusiform  or  conical, 
widest  near  the  head,  tapering  gradually  with  nearly  straiglit  lines  above 
and  below ;  the  fins  are  all  weak,  the  dorsal  placed  far  back,  nearly  as  far, 
indeed,  as  in   Gatopterus.     The  structure  of  the  fin  is  like  that  of  IscJiyp- 


68  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

ieriis,  viz,  relatively  large  spinous  fulcra  border  the  margins,  the  rays  are 
few  and  widely  separated,  the  caudal  is  narrower  than  in  most  species  of 
Ischjptenis,  and  the  inequality  of  the  extremity  of  the  body — i.  e.,  the  heter- 
ocercy — is  about  the  same  as  in  Ischypterus^  and  considerably  more  marked 
than  in  Cutopterus. 

Searching  for  allies  of  these  little  fishes  among  the  figures  and  descrip- 
tions which  have  been  published  I  find  in  Agassiz's  Pakeoniscus  glapliyrus 
and  in  the  three  fishes  described  by  J.  W.  Kirkby,'  and  called  by  him 
Palceonisciis  alius,  P.  Abbsii,  and  P.  varians,  what  perhaps  may  be  members 
of  the  same  genus.  More  material,  and  that  in  a  better  stata  of  preserva- 
tion will  be  required,  however,  before  a  satisfactory  comparison  can  be 
made.  It  is  perhaps  not  certain  that  the  group  referred  to  all  belong  to 
one  genus.  For  example,  Pakoniscus  alias  of  Kirkby  very  closely  resem- 
bles our  small  ovoid  species  of  Lschpyterus  (I.  latus),  diff'ering,  so  far  as  I  can 
see,  only  in  this,  that  none  of  the  median  row  of  dorsal  scales  in  P.  alius 
are  spiny.  Dr.  R.  H.  Traquair — who  has  made  a  careful  study  of  the 
fishes  described  by  Mr.  Kirkby — considers  this  a  character  of  generic 
value,  and  it  has  led  him  to  place  all  the  group  of  Ischpj^terus-like  fishes 
(Pakeoniscus  glaphynis,  P.  alias,  P.  varians,  and  P.  Abbsii)  in  a  new  genus, 
which,  from  the  absence  of  spiny  scales,  he  calls  Acaiitrophor as? 

In  the  Chicopee  fishes  the  structure,  so  far  as  can  be  made  out,  is 
altogether  that  of  Ischjpterus,  except  that  the  median  dorsal  scales  are  all 
rounded  or  ovoid.  Unfortunately  the  details  of  the  head  structure  are  ob- 
scured by  the  metamorphosis  to  which  the  inclosing'  rocks  have  been  sub- 
jected. The  teeth  are,  however,  distinctly  shown,  and  they  prove  to-  be. 
conical,  pointed,  and  relatively  strong.  The  form  of  the  bod}'  is  more 
elongated  than  in  most  species  of  Ischjpkras;  in  that  respect  resembling 
Kirkby's  Palceoniscus  varians  and  P.  Abbsii,  but  the  dorsal  fin  is  placed 
farther  back  than  in  those  fishes  or  in  any  species  of  Ischypkrus  known. 
It  is,  in  fact,  but  little  in  advance  of  the  anal.  All  the  fins,  including  the 
caudal,  have  the  structure  of  those  of  Ischypkrus,  having  few  and  many- 
jointed  rays  and  long  spiny  fulcra,  but  all  are  relatively  weak. 

'Quart.  Ji>ur.  Geol.  S'>c.  Lonilon,  vol.  20,  135t,  p.  353. 
-Quart.  Jour.  Geol.  Soc.  London,  vol.  33,1877,  p.  GGo. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  69 

The  size  and  number  of  the  spiny  scales  of  the  dorsal  line  vary  much 
in  the  diiferent  species  of  Ischypterus,  and  it  is  not  quite  certain  how  far 
these  scales  can  be  accepted  as  a  generic  character.  For  example,  in  some 
specimens  of  I.  tenuieeps,  Ag.  sp ,  the  scales  of  the  dorsal  line  immediately 
back  of  the  head  are  enormously  developed,  being  more  than  half  an  inch 
long,  erect,  radiate,  and  club-shaped,  forming  a  salient  crest,  which  gives  a 
very  striking  aspect  to  the  fish.  On  the  other  hand,  in  I.  latus  J.  H.  R.  the 
anterior  scales  of  the  dorsal  line  are  oval  and  not  spined,  wliile  the  scales 
back  of  these,  though  spined,  are  generally  depressed  and  inconspicuous. 

In  the  figure  of  Palceoniscus  alius  published  by  Mr.  Kirkby^  the  form 
is  almost  exactly  that  of  the  specimens  of  Iscliypterus  latus  from  Plainfield, 
N.  J.,  and  the  size  is  but  little  less.  The  head  bones,  scales,  and  fins  seem 
to  be  quite  the  same,  only  no  spined  scales  appear  in  Mr.  Kirkby's  figures 
and  descriptions.  If  this  should  be  made  a  generic  character,  these  two  so- 
closely  allied  little  fishes  must  be  separated,  but  if  the  differences  noticed 
above  between  P.  tenuieeps  and  P.  latus  should  be  found  to  exist  in  equal  or 
greater  degree  among  other  species,  they  should  be  given  only  specific  value. 

The  disparity  in  form  between  Palceoniscus  alius  Kirkby  and  P.  varians 
Kirkby  would  seem  to  be  associated  with  some  other  characters  which  sug- 
gest a  generic  distinctness;  for  example,  the  operculum  is  large  and  rounded 
in  the  latter,  narrow  and  crescent- shaped  in  the  former.  That  P.  alius  and 
P.  glaphyrus  are  members  of  the  same  genus  can  hardly  be  doubted;  but 
whether  P.  varians  and  P.  Abbsii  should  be  united  with  them  may  perhaps 
be  questioned.  The  form  of  the  body  is  certainly  very  different,  and  in  P. 
alius  the  operculum  is  semilunar  and  the  branchiostegals  are  scarcely  visible 
(characters  common  to  Iscliypterus),  while  in  P.  varians  and  P.  Abhsii  tlie 
opercula,  including  siibopercula,  are  nearly  round  and  the  branchiostegals 
arc  very  conspicuous. 

ACENTROPHOEUS   CHICOPENSIS,  n.  sp. 

PI.  XIX,  Figs.  3,  4. 

Fishes  six  inches  long  by  one  and  three-eighths  inches  wide,  greatest 
breadth  near  head,  from  which  point  the  body  slopes  equally  above  and 

iLoc.  cit. 


70  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

below  to  the  tail;  head  broad  and  obtuse,  as  wide  as  the  body,  about  one- 
quarter  the  entire  length;  teeth  conical,  relatively  large;  dorsal  line  nearly 
straight,  fins  relatively  small,  dorsal  and  anal  placed  far  back  on  body; 
dorsal  midway  between  occiput  and  tip  of  tail  and  much  behind  middle  of 
body;  anal  when  depressed  reaching  nearly  to  base  of  caudal;  ventrals 
nearer  to  anal  than  to  pectorals;  caudal  narrow  and  weak;  scales  of  medium 
size,  apparently  all  smooth,  those  of  the  median  doisal  Hne  round  or  oval 
without  spines. 

A  large  number  of  fishes  of  this  species  are  contained  in  the  collection 
presented  to  Yale  College  by  J.  H.  Redfield.  They  are  from  the  same 
locality,  Chicopee  Falls,  Mass.,  and  are  nearly  of  the  same  size.  They  are 
contained  in  a  rather  coarse  sandy  shale,  which  has  been  considerably  met- 
amorphosed by  the  proximity  of  trap-rock.  This  has  obscured  some  of  tlie 
details  of  structure,  such  as  the  surface  of  the  scales,  the  shape  and  mark- 
ings of  the  head  bones,  etc.,  but  has  left  the  outlines  of  the  body  and  the 
position  and  form  of  the  fins  distinctly  visible.  The  most  striking  charac- 
ters of  these  fishes  are  the  narrow,  wedge-shaped  form  of  the  body,  the 
straightness  of  the  dorsal  and  ventral  lines,  the  smallness  of  the  fins,  the 
posterior  position  of  the  dorsal,  and  the  rounded  and  unarmed  margins  of 
the  median  dorsal  scales.  As  mentioned  above,  these  seem  sufficient  to 
warrant  our  placing  them  in  a  distinct  genus,  and  since  they  are  in  most 
respects  very  similar  to  the  group  of  fishes  upon  which  Dr.  Traquair  has 
founded  his  genus  Acenfrojjhonis,  it  seems  best  to  refer  them  at  least  pro- 
visionally to  that. 

Order  CROSSOPTERYGID.^  Huxley. 

Family  CCELACANTHINI  Ag. 

Genus  DIPLURUS  Newb. 

Fishes  of  large  size,  fusiform  in  outline,  having,  in  common  with  other 
members  of  the  Coelacanth  family,  a  depressed  and  pointed  muzzle,  some- 
what angular  occiput,  two  dorsal  fins  supported  on  interspinous  bones,  a 
dyphycercal  caudal  fin  traversed  by  the  spinal  column  which  bears  at  its 
extremity  a  small  supplemental  caudal ;  the  pectoral  and  ventral  fins  lobate, 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  71 

the  anal  nearly  opposite  the  posterior  dorsal.  The  scales  are  ovoid  in  outline, 
relatively  thin,  imbricated,  with  one-third  to  one-half  the  surface  exposed, 
and  this  ornamented  with  raised  enamel  lines.  The  bones  of  the  head  and 
pectoral  arch  ai-e  granulated,  or  ornamented  with  raised,  tortuous,  interlock- 
ing, and  interrupted  i-idges.  The  air  bladder  was  ossified,  the  vertebral 
column  cartilaginous,  and  having  disappeared  in  fossilization,  its  place  is  rep- 
resented by  a  smooth  band,  which  is  continuous  from  the  head  to  the  ex- 
tremity of  the  tail.  In  the  caudal  and  supplemental  caudal  fins  the  course 
of  the  spinal  cord  is  marked  by  rows  of  scales  of  diminished  size.  Tlie 
neural  and  haemal  spines  were  ossified,  and  are  distinctly  shown  in  the 
fossil  state.  The  rays  of  the  caudal  fins  were  supported  by  interneural  and 
interhsemal  spines,  to  the  extremities  of  which  they  are  attached  by  sheathing 
splices.  As  in  all  the  other  members  of  the  ftimily,  the  fin  rays  are  hollow, 
and  the  sides  are  frequently  crushed  together  in  the  fossil  state,  but  in 
Diplurus  the  walls  were  strong  and  the  rays  generally  retain  their  forms. 
As  in  Holopliagus  and  some  of  the  living  siluroids  {Doras,  Plecostomus,  etc.), 
the  fin  rays  are  coated  with  short,  closely-set,  acute  spines.  The  dentition 
is  yet  unknown,  not  being  shown  in  any  of  the  specimens  found  up  to  the 
present  time.  Whether  the  teeth  were  flat  and  obtuse,  like  those  of  Undina, 
or  acute,  as  in  Coslacanfhus,  remains  to  be  determined  l)y  further  ob.serva- 
tion. 

Diplunis  shows  throughout  its  structure  all  the  characteristic  features 
of  the  remarkable  family  to  which  it  belongs.  Its  resemblance  to  Conla- 
canthus,  Hohpliagus,  and  Macropoma  is  so  close,  that  if  they  all  occurred 
in  the  same  geologic  formation  Ave  should  hardly  be  justified,  with  our 
present  knowledge,  in  regarding  them  as  more  widely  separated  than  are 
diff"erent  species  of  the  same  genus.  This  similarity  among  the  members 
of  the  fixmily  lias  been  noticed  by  Professor  Huxley  in  his  remarks  on 
Ccelaccmthus,  Holopliagus,  Undina,  etc.^ 

It  is  one  of  the  most  surprising  and  interesting  facts  in  the  history  of 
fishes  that  this  family  should  appear  so  suddenly,  spread  over  the  whole 
northern  hemisphere,  retain  all  the  details  of  its  highly  specialized  struct- 
ure through  the  Carboniferous  and  Mesozoic  ages,  and  then  disappear  as 


'  Mem.  Geol.  Survey  Uaifced  Kiugaom,  British  Organic  Remains,  Decade  10,  18G1. 


72  TRIASSIC  FISHES  A^T>  PLANTS. 

suddenly  as  it  came,  leaving  among  tlie  Tertiary  and  living  fishes  no  de- 
scendants which  can  be  affiliated  witli  it.  In  the  desci'iption  of  Coilacanthus 
elegans^  I  have  referred  to  the  close  resemblance  and  possible  identity  of 
this  little  fresh-water  fish  with  C.  lepturus,  which  lived  in  the  lagoons  in  the 
coal  marshes  of  England.  Not  only  are  all  details  of  internal  structure  the 
same,  but  the  elaborate  ornamentation  of  scales  and  head  plates  presents  no 
tang'ible  differences. 

From  Tlolophagus  (with  which  Diplurus  seems  to  be  most  closely  allied) 
its  only  obvious  differences  are  the  finer  striation  of  the  scales,  the  wider 
separation  of  the  two  caudal  fins,  and  the  fewer  articulations  of  tlie  fin 
rays.  In  Holopliagus  and  ^/wrZina  and  in  the  Jurassic  species  of  Ccdacanthus 
described  b}^  T.  C.  Winkler^  the  supplemental  caudal  fin  seems  to  spring 
directly  from  the  extremity  of  the  caudal.  In  Dipliirus  there  is  a  distinct 
interval  between  them;  a  character  which  suggested  the  name  Dlpliims,  or 
double-tail.  Judging  from  the  specimens  of  Holopliagus  gulo  which  I  re- 
cently had  an  opportunity  of  examining,  both  the  original  of  Sir  Philip 
Egerton's  generic  description  and  the  more  complete  one  figured  by  Pro- 
fessor Huxley,^  1  should  say  that  this  was  a  shorter  and  broader  fish  than 
oiir  Diplurus.  Sir  Philip  Egerton's  specimen  is  much  smaller,  but  it  wants 
the  head,  and  can  not  be  fully  compared.  In  the  body  traces  of  another 
fish  are  visible,  which  had  apparently  been  swallowed.  This  would  show 
that  Holopliagus  was  carnivorous.  The  scales  of  Holophagus  are  orna- 
mented with  relatively  few  short,  broad,  divergent  ridges  of  enamel,  wliile 
our  species  of  Diplurus  has  many  fine  parallel  thread  lines  on  the  scales. 

In  my  description  of  the  first  specimens  of  Diplurus  found  I  reported 
the  fin  rays  to  be  smooth  and  the  scales  granulated,  but  that  specimen 
was  from  Boonton,  N.  J.,  and  was  buried  in  a  coarse,  sandy  shale,  in  which 
the  minute  spines  of  the  fin  rays  were  not  discernible,  and  the  thread  lines 
of  the  scales  were  broken  into  granules  by  the  grains  of  sand.  Other 
and  better  specimens  found  later  at  Durham,  Conn.,  show  the  characters 
now  described. 

■  Rept.  Geol.  Survey  Ohio,  vol.  1,  pt.  2,  Paleontology,  1873,  p.  3159. 

'^Archives  Miis^e  Teyler,  vol.3,  pp.  101-116. 

'Mem.  Geol.  Survey  United  Kingdom,  British  Organic  Remains,  Decade  13,  1673. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  73 

T.  C.  Winkler  has  described  two  Coelacantli  fislies  which  may  be  com- 
pared with  Diplurm.  Of  these,  the  first  is  from  tlie  Solenhofen  (Jurassic) 
hmestone,  and  he  has  called  it  Codamntlms  Haarlemensis}  This  is  in  some 
respects  imperfectly  preserved,  but  is  apparently  distinct  from  any  other 
described  fish,  although  it  deserves  more  careful  comparison  with  Holo^h- 
agus  gulo  Egerton.  The  specimen  upon  which  Mr.  Winkler's  description 
was  based  is  a  fish  about  one  foot  in  length,  of  which  the  outlines  are 
fringed  and  somewhat  obscured  by  dendritic  crystallizations  of  manganese 
common  in  the  Solenhofen  fossils.  The  scales  have  all  disappeared,  but 
some  indications  of  their  surface  markings  are  visible  at  certain  points.  If 
correctly  reported  these  consist  of  fine,  parallel,  nearly  straight  lines  run- 
ning in  an  antero-posterior  direction.  This  fish  would  also  seem  to  be 
peculiar  in  the  strength  of  the  ventral  fins,  which  are  represented  as  fully 
equal  in  size  to  the  dorsals.  In  this  character  it  seems  to  be  distinguislied 
from  all  other  known  members  of  the  family.  The  surface  markings  of 
the  scales  are  like  those  of  our  Dlplurus,  but  that  fisli  is  much  larger,  the 
ventral  fins  are  not  so  strong,  and  the  supplemental  caudal  is  more  dis- 
tinctly separated. 

The  second  of  the  two  species  described  by  Mr.  Winkler  he  called 
CoelacantJms  giganteusr  This  was  obtained  from  the  Trias  of  Wiirzburg. 
Its  derivation  makes  it  of  special  interest  for  comparison  with  Biplums,  be- 
cause no  other  Triassic  Goelacanth  is  known.  Unfortunately,  however,  the 
specimen  described  by  Mr.  Winkler  is  a  mere  fragment.  Tliis  indicates  a 
fish  of  enormous  size.  The  caudal  fin  rays,  the  only  ones  yet  known,  are 
six  inches  long  and  as  large  as  goose  quills ;  the  supplemental  caudal  is 
represented  as  small  and  as  closely  approximated  to  tlie  anterior  caudal. 

Whether  these  fishes  described  by  Mr.  Winkler  should  really  be  in- 
cluded in  the  same  genus  with  the  species  oVCoelacantlms  from  the  Coal 
Measures  and  Permian  remains  to  be  seen.  The  general  structure  of  all 
the  members  of  the  family  is  so  like,  that  much  more  material  and  that 
well  preserved,  will  be  necessary  before  exact  comparison  can  be  made. 
It  is  probable  that  the  teeth  will  furnish  tlie  best  diagnostic  characters. 
The   teeth    of  our  Carboniferous    CcelacantJms  are  certainly   conical   and 

'  Archives  Musfe  Teyler,  vol.  3,  p.  101.  «Ibid.,  vol.  o,  p.  147. 


74  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

acute,  as  is  shown  in  several  specimens  in  my  possession.  Tfie  teeth  of 
Holopliarius  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  known  ;  those  of  Undlna  are  stated  b^' 
Count  Miinster  and  by  Professor  Huxley'  to  be  pavement-like  and  tuber- 
culated ;  -finall}',  those  oi  Macropoma  are  conical  and  acute. 

DiPLUEUS    LONGICAUDATUS    Newb. 
n.  XX,  Figs.  1-5. 

Biplurus  longicaudatus  Newb.,  Annals  New  York  Acad.  Sci.,  vol.  1,  p.  127. 

Fish  attainino-  a  leng'tli  of  three  feet  and  a  breadth  of  eiarlit  or  ten 
inches;  body  fusiform,  symmetrical;  head  pointed,  sloping  rapidly  down 
from  the  occiput;  back  gently  arched,  anterior  dorsal  fin  strong,  sup- 
ported by  a  semicircular  bone ;  posterior  dorsal  placed  nearly  opposite  to 
the  anal  fin  and  midway  between  tlie  anterior  dorsal  and  the  extremity  of 
the  body;  caudal  fin  very  long,  supported  by  tliirty-two  ?  long  and  strong 
rays,  which  are  spliced  on  to  the  interneural  and  interhaemal  spines ; 
supplemental  caudal  separated  from  tlie  caudal  fin  by  a  distinct  interval ; 
in  form  it  is  an  equilateral  triangle  about  three  inches  on  a  side ;  the  web 
of  this  fin  is  supported  by  about  nine  simple  fluted  rays  above  and  below, 
of  which  the  bulbous  bases  were  inserted  into  the  cartilaginous  extremity 
of  the  vertebral  column,  as  posts  are  set  in  the  ground ;  paired  fins 
strongly  lobate ;  anterior  fin  rays  of  these  and  the  two  dorsal  fins 
roughened  by  many  short,  conical,  acute  spines ;  teeth  unknown ;  scales 
ovoid,  half  an  inch  in  diameter,  the  exposed  poi'tion  occupied  b}^  fine 
parallel  raised  lines,  running  from  front  to  rear. 

Only  four  specimens  and  the  head  of  a  fifth  have  yet  been  found  of 
this  the  largest  of  our  Triassic  ganoids,  and  all  these  are  now  in  the  Geo- 
logical Museum  of  Columbia  College.  Two  of  tliese  specimens  were 
obtained  in  excavations  made  at  Boonton,  N.  J.;  the  others  were  collected 
by  S.  W.  Loper  at  Durham,  Conn. 

The  smaller  of  the  Boonton  specimens  is  figured  on  PI.  XX  of  this 
memoir.  This  is  interesting,  as  showing  the  general  form  of  the  fish,  the 
position  of  the  fins,  etc.,  but  the  details  of  structure  are  not  distinctly  per- 
ceptible.    Another  and  much  larger  specimen  was  found  at  Boonton,  but  it 

'Mom.  Geol.  Survey,  Uuited  Kiugdom,  BiitisU  Organic  Rouiiuns,  Decade  10,  1801,  p.  17. 


FOSSIL  FISHES.  75 

lay  near  the  surface  and  was  so  much  decomposed  that  it  siipphed  httle 
information,  except  as  regards  size;  it  was  about  three  feet  in  length. 

The  description  of  the  genus  and  species  published  in  the  Annals  of 
the  New  York  Academy  of  Sciences  was  taken  from  the  Boonton  specimens, 
and,  from  their  imperfect  preservation,  was  in  some  respects  erroneous. 
One  of  the  specimens  obtained  at  Durham,  though  wanting  the  muzzle  and 
having  the  tail  much  decomposed,  exhibits  in  other  respects  the  beautiful 
preservation  characteristic  of  the  Durham  fishes.  This  shows  the  oi'ua- 
raentation  of  the  scales  copied  on  PI.  XX,  Figs.  3-5,  and  spines  on  the  fin 
raj's.  Another  quite  imperfect  specimen  found  at  Durham  was  flattened 
vertically,  and  shows  a  broad  rounded  head  like  that  of  a  salamander,  but 
this  outline  is  doubtless  due  to  compression.  Four  out  of  the  fi\'e  specimens 
of  Diplurus  known  were  found  lying  on  the  side,  from  which  we  ma}^  infer 
that  like  most  fishes  it  was  broader  vertically  than  transverseh",  and  that 
the  rounded  head  of  the  specimen  referred  to  above  was  the  result  of  an 
unnatural  position  accidentally  assumed. 

It  is  somewhat  surprising-  that  no  distinct  teeth  can  be  discerned  in 
any  of  the  heads  of  Diplurus  yet  found,  thougli  some  impressions  at  the 
extremities  of  the  mandibles  of  one  of  the  Boonton  specimens  indicate  but 
do  not  prove  that  the  teeth  were  conical  and  acute.  This  is  the  character 
of  the  teeth  of  Coslacanfhus  and  Macropoma,  and  it  is  probable  that  Diplurus 
was  the  enemy  and  devourer  of  the  many  species  of  smaller  ganoids  with 
which  it  was  associated.  Numerous  large  coprolites  are  found  in  the  same 
beds,  and  it  would  seem  natural  to  refer  them  to  Diplurus,  but  it  is  some- 
what remarkable  that  none  of  these  coprolites  have  yet  shown  any  traces 
of  bones  or  scales  such  as  we  might  expect  to  find  in  the  excreta  of  fishes 
which  lived  on  ganoids. 

In  the  absence  of  teeth  we  can  not  certainly  determine  whether  Di/j^MrHS 
was  carnivorous  or  herbivorous.  The  coprolites  referred  to  afford  good 
evidence  that  the  Triassic  estuaries  contained  in  considerable  numbers  a 
large  fish  which  did  not  feed  on  the  various  scaled  ganoids  that  abounded 
in  the  same  waters.  On  the  other  hand,  it  should  be  said  tliat  the  head 
bones  oi  Diplurus,  including  cranium,  operculn,  maxillaries,  and  mandibles, 
were  all  well  ossified,  much  more  so  indeed  than  those  of  Catopterus  or 


7G  TRIASSIG  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

Ischypterus ;  from  which  we  may  infer  that  the  dental  apparatus  was  em- 
ployed in  serious  and  severe  work  of  some  kind.  The  only  vegetable  re- 
mains found  in  the  fish-beds  of  New  Jersey  and  Connecticut  are  those  of 
land  plants — fronds  of  cycads  and  twigs  of  conifers — and  it  is  hardly  prob- 
able these  could  have  formed  the  subsistence  of  Biplurus.  Mollusks  and 
Crustaceans  are  entirely  absent;  so,  unless  he  devoured  the  scaled  ganoids, 
of  which  the  remains  are  so  abundant,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  of  what  his 
food  could  have  consisted.  His  structure  shows  that  he  was  a  swift  and 
powerful  fish,  and  his  congeners  were  carnivorous.  We  may  expect  there- 
fore that,  when  his  dentition  shall  be  discovered,  that  will  solve  the  problem' 
by  demonstrating  his  carnivorous  habits. 


Pi^HT   III. 


FOSSIL  PLANTS  OF  THE  TRIASSIG  ROCKS  OF  NEW  JERSEY 
AND  THE  CONNECTICUT  VALLEY. 


77 


SKETCH  OF  TRIASSIC  FLORA. 


The  number  of  fossil  plants  obtained  from  the  Triassic  rocks  of  tlic 
valley  of  the  Connecticut  and  from  New  Jersey  is  not  large,  and  as  a  gen- 
eral rule  they  are  not  well  preserved.  A  sufficient  number  of  fairly  good 
specimens  have,  however,  been  collected  at  Sunderland,  Mass.,  Durham 
and  Middletown,  Conn.,  and  at  Newark  and  Milford,  N.  J.,  to  demand  a 
brief  notice. 

These  include  the  following  species : 

SeMzoneura planicostata  Hogers,  si^.       Otoza.Diiies  hrevifolius  Fr.  Brauu. 

Equisetum  Bogersi  Schimper.  Cyeadinocarpus  Gliapini  Newb. 

Eqiiisetum  Meriani  ?  Brong.  Pacliyphyllum  simile  Newb. 

ClatJiropteris  platy])hylla  Broug.  Pacliyphyllum  hrevifolium  'Sevih. 

Palissya  Braunii  Eudl.  Cheirolepis  Miinsteri  Scliimper. 

Palissya  diffusa'!  Emmons,  sp.  Loperia  simplex  Newb. 

Baiera  Milnsteriana  Saporta.  Bendrophycus  Triassicus  Newb. 

Baiera  multijida  Fontaine.  Dioonitcs  longifolius 'Emmons,  sp. 
Otozamites  latior  Saporta. 

In  addition  to  these  are  many  ill-defined  plant  remains,  some  of  which 
indicate  genera  and  species  new  to  science  ;  others  are  decorticated  stems 
and  branches,  apparently  of  coniferous  trees,  probably  Palissya.  Some  of 
these  are  quite  plain  and  smooth,  but  others  are  marked  with  lozenge- 
shaped  figures  resembling  a  Lepidoclendron  from  which  the  bark  was  stripped, 
while  the  outlines  of  the  rhomboidal  leaf  scars  remained.  These  have  been 
sometimes  called  Lcjndodendra,  but  without  warrant,  and  we  have  no  evi- 
dence that  any  species  of  Lepidodendron  passed  from  the  Paleozoic  into  the 
Mesozoic  Age. 

79 


80  TllIASSIG  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

No  real  plant-beds  have  been  found  in  the  northern  Triassic  areas,  and 
all  the  remains  of  plants  yet  met  with  seem  to  be  floated  fragments,  that  here 
and  there  sank  to  the  bottom  of  the  basin  and  were  buried  in  the  accumu- 
lating sediments.  In  the  sandstones,  which  were  transported  by  rapid  cur- 
rents or  were  formed  by  shore  waves,  delicate  plants  and  the  foliary  ap- 
pendages of  trees  would  naturally  be  triturated  and  destroyed,  and  in  the 
quarries  from  which  building  stone  is  taken  at  Newark  stems  and  branches, 
with  an  occasional  cone,  are  all  the  plant  remains  that  have  survived  the 
lough  treatment  which  they  have  received.  These  are,  however,  so  numer- 
ous in  some  of  the  layers,  that  they  prove  the  former  existence  of  land  cov- 
ered with  vegetation  at  no  great  distance 

At  Milford,  N.  J.,  the  plants  are  more  numerous  and  somewhat  better 
preserved.  There  we  find  the  stems  of  Uqidsetum  and  Schimneura,  with 
many  twigs  and  some  cones  of  conifers.  The  Equiseta  not  unfrequently 
show  the  diaphragms  which  partitioned  off  the  stems  at  the  joints,  and,  with 
other  things,  we  sometimes  meet  with  disks  or  flattened  cones  of  which 
the  surface  is  radiately  striate  and  which  have  considerable  resemblance  to 
some  of  the  woody  fungi,  PoJyporus,  etc.  These  I  have  supposed  may 
have  been  the  diaphragms  of  Equisetum  Bogersi,  but  they  are  not  sufficiently 
well  preserved  to  justify  any  positive  assertion  in  regard  to  their  botanical 
relations. 

At  Durham,  Conn.,  the  fronds  of  cycads  and  ferns  are  not  uncommon, 
and  one  specimen  obtained  by  Mr.  Loper  shows  a  number  of  fronds  of 
Otosamites  radiating  from  what  seems  to  have  been  the  summit  of  a  stem. 
The  fern  fronds,  too,  are  grouped  in  such  a  way  as  to  illustrate  the  radiate 
arrangement  of  the  pinna;  in  Clathropteris. 

The  quantity  of  carbonaceous  matter  in  the  shales  here  is  large,  and  is 
so  generally  diffused  that  we  must  conclude  it  was  largely  derived  from  the 
decomposition  of  plant  tissue.  This  indicates  the  proximity  of  a  consider- 
able amount  of  growing  vegetation  at  the  time  of  the  deposition  of  the 
shales,  and  it  is  possible  tliat  somewhere  near  this  locality  plant-beds  will 
be  found  which  will  afford  a  better  view  of  this  vegetation. 

In  the  Portland  quarries  casts  of  the  trunks  and  branches  of  trees  are 
not  unfrequently  met  with,  but  they  are  always  imperfectly  preserved,  and 


SKETCH  OF  TRIASSIO  FLORA.  81 

we  can  only  conjecture  that  tliey  represent  coniferous  forests  which  grew 
on  the  highlands  at  no  great  distance.  Here,  too,  the  remains  of  what 
seem  to  be  sea-weeds  of  a  peculiar  character  are  found  in  considerable 
abundance.  These  show  a  striking  resemblance  to.  plants  which  have 
been  obtained  from  the  Umbral  shales  of  Pennsylvania  and  which  have 
been  named  Dendrophycus  by  Leo  Lesquereux.  The  similarity  is  so  great, 
that  I  have  ventured  to  describe  them  as  a  species  of  this  genus,  and  have 
called  them  Bendrophjcus  Triasskus.  They  will  be  found  figured  and 
described  more  in  detail  in  another  part  of  this  memoir. 

At  Hadley's  Falls,  Sunderland,  and,  more  rarely,  at  Boonton,  the  lay- 
ei's  of  shale  are  frequently  covered  with  fragments  of  twigs  of  a  conifer 
which  has  been  sometimes  referred  to  as  a  Voltzia,  but,  though  the  foliage 
is  dimorphous,  some  of  the  twigs  are  clothed  with  closely  appressed,  scale- 
like leaves,  while  on  others  they  are  divergent,  though  always  short  and 
thick.  One  cone-bearing  twig  of  this  plant,  found  at  Sunderland,  shows 
distinctly  that  it  is  not  a  Voltzia,  but  is  rather  a  Pachyphylhim. 

This  plant  is  apparently  the  same  with  that  which  has  been  considered 
by  Fontaine  as  identical  with  Cheirolepis  Milnsteri  of  Schimper,  but  the 
cone  referred  to  shows  that  it  is  not  Cheirolepis,  the  scales  being  small  and 
the  exposed  surfaces  rhomboidal.  At  Milford,  N.  J.,  however,  cones  and 
detached  scales  are  found  which  apparently  do  belong  to  Cheirolepis,  and 
perhaps  to  C.  Munsteri.  Numerous  leaf-bearing  twigs  associated  with  these 
cones  show  that  the  foliage  was  symmetrical  and  even  elegant  in  character. 
The  branches  spread  in  the  same  plane  and,  terminating  in  twigs  pinnately 
arranged,  regularly  diminishing  in  length,  pi-esent  somewhat  the  appearance 
of  Thuja  or  Moriconia,  but  the  form  of  the  leaf  is  quite  different,  being 
short  and  triangular,  similai  to  that  of  some  species  of  Pachyphyllum. 

MON  XIV 6 


DESCRIPTIONS  OF  GENERA  AND  SPECIES. 


Denduophycus  teiassicus,  n.  sp. 

PI.  XXJ,  Figs.  1,  2. 

In  the  Geology  of  Pennsylvania,  by  H.  D.  Rogers  (vol.  2,  PI.  XXIII), 
is  represented  a  fossil  plant  which  is  designated  as  an  "algoid  resembling  a 
DesmarcstiaP  This  is  fossilized  in  the  red  shale  of  the  "Umbral,"  a  part  of 
the  Lower  Carboniferous  formation  in  northern  Pennsylvania.  Tlie  fossil 
consists  of  a  number  of  branching  stems  from  which  are  thrown  off  slender 
dichotomous  branches  from  either  side,  and  these  branches,  cylindrical  like 
the  stems,  support  numerous  opposite  or  alternate  simple  branchlets.  No 
reference  to  this  plant  is  made  in  the  text,  but  it  is  evident  that  it  is  what  it 
is  represented  to  be,  a  sea-weed,  though  its  affinities  with  the  living  algse 
may  be  a  matter  of  doubt. 

In  the  Report  of  tlie  Second  Geological  Survey  of  Pennsylvania  (vol.  3), 
Coal  Flora,  by  Leo  Lesquereux,  a  figure  is  given  (PI.  I)  of  what  is  appar- 
ently the  same  plant  as  that  figured  by  Rogers.  This  is  briefly  described^ 
under  the  name  Bendrophycus  Desorii.  It  is  said  to  occur  in  the  red  shale 
below  Pottsville,  and  also  abundantly  in  the  bluffs  of  the  Susquehanna 
above  Pittston. 

Splendid  specimens  of  this  plant  are  reported  by  Mr.  Lesquereux^  as 
occurring  "  near  Davenport,  Iowa,  in  a  bed  of  clay  and  hardened  sand- 
rock,  traversing  like  a  dike  the  Corniferous  limestone  overlaid  by  the  Ham- 
ilton group."     In  his  description  of  this  plant  Mr.  Lesquereux  says: 

The  root.s  or  radicular  appcndage.s,    *     »     •     are  api)areiitly  cjiindrical  or  tuba- 
louR,     *     *     *     often  braiH'.liiiiy;  at  riylit  angles,  three  or  four  mm.  in  diameter,  of 

1  Op.  cit.,  pp.  699,  700.  ^0]>.  eit,,  p.  701. 

R3 


FOSSIL  PLANTS.  83 

coriaceous  or  horny  texture  shining  on  the  surface.  *  *  *  The  rhizoma  is  1.20  to 
1.50  m.  long,  perfectly  cylindrical,  ".i  to  4  cm.  in  diameter,  simple  and  regular  iu  its 
whole  length,  with  a  rough  surface.  *  *  *  Tlie  top  of  the  rhizoma,  abruptly  en- 
larged into  a  globular  shape  resembling  a  cabbage  head  17  cm.  iu  diameter,  looked, 
when  broken,  like  a  convolute  undeveloped  frond,  with  branches  densely  rolled  to- 
gether into  a  ball  where  the  divisions  or  the  relative  disposition  of  the  branches  could 
not  be  distinctly  observed.  The  fronds,  very  large,  1  to  1.25  m.  long  by  50  cm.  broad, 
are  composed  of  cylindrical  divisions,  the  primary  and  secondary  oues  being  thick, 
the  larger  2  cm.  in  diameter,  flattened  on  the  surface,  all  gradually  smaller  from  the 
base  to  their  ends,  closely  distichous,  dichotomous,  flexuous,  with  oblique  multiple 
subdivisions,  the  ultimate  two-ranked  being  very  closely  pinnately  distichous,  cylin- 
drical, pointed,  or  gradually  narrowing  from  the  middle  and  effaced  at  the  apex. 

I  have  copied  this  description  nearly  entire  because  it  is  ahnost  liter- 
ally applicable  to  a  plant  represented  on  PI.  XXI  of  this  memoir  and  ob- 
tained from  the  sandstones  of  Portland,  Conn.  When  we  consider  the  vast 
interval  of  time  between  the  deposition  of  the  Umbral  shale  of  Pennsyl- 
vania and  that  of  the  Rhaetic  sandstone  of  Connecticut,  one  tlie  base  of 
the  Carboniferous  system  and  the  other  the  summit  of  the  Trias,  it  can 
not  fail  to  be  regarded  as  interesting  and  surprising  that  the  resemblance 
should  be  so  complete.  But  for  the  a  priori  improbability  that  a  species  of 
sea-weed  should  be  so  long-Hved  I  should  hardly  feel  justified  in  giving 
even  a  new  specific  name  to  the  Triassic  specimens.  Possibly  a  comparison 
of  more  material  would  show  differences  not  now  perceptible,  but  the  pecu- 
liar mode  of  growth  and  the  details  of  structure  seem  to  be  essentially  the 
same.  In  the  Portland  sandstones,  as  in  the  Umbral  shales,  the  fronds  of 
Bendrophjcus  are  enrolled  in  masses  that  suggest  cabbage-heads  of  large 
size  and  rather  loose  texture,  while  the  mode  of  subdivision  and  the  char- 
acter of  the  final  ramifications  of  the  frond  are  so  like  that,  with  the  simi- 
larity of  the  inclosing  rock,  the  specimens  from  the  two  localities  and 
horizons  are  almost  undistinguishable.  Though  a  less  conspicuous  example 
of  a  "  persistent  type  "  than  Stroplwmena  rhomhoidalis  or  Atri/iJa  reticularis 
the  survival  of  a  sea-weed  of  such  strongly  marked  character  through  so 
great  an  interval  is  as  unexpected  as  it  is  interesting. 

Spirophyton,  which  begins  in  the  middle  Devonian  (Corniferous)  and 
runs  up  into  the  Coal  Measures,  is  another  example  of  persistence  in  an  allied 
group  of  algaj ;  but  that  genus  is  represented  at  the  different  horizons  by 


84  TEIASSIO  FISHES  AXD  PLANTS. 

quite  different  species.  One  found  in  the  Waverly  has  the  frond  divided 
veiy  much  as  in  Dendrophjcus,  while  m  other  species  in  the  same  rock  the 
fronds  are  simply  plicate  or  swollen  into  buUse  apparently  by  vesicles  which 
served  as  floats. 

BaIERA   MiJNSTEKIANA  Ung. 
PI.  XXII,  Fig.  1. 

"We  here  give  a  representation  of  one  of  many  specimens  of  a  species 
of  Baiera,  f©und  by  Mr.  S.  W.  Loper  at  Durham,  Conn. 

Taken  by  itself,  the  larger  of  these  specimens  (Fig.  1 )  would  seem  to 
represent  a  species  closely  allied  to  B.  Mmsteriana^  but  somewhat  taller  and 
more  slender  than  any  described  variety  of  that  species.  Other  fragments, 
however,  show  that  the  fronds  were  sometimes  much  shorter  and  broader, 
and  therefore  more  like  the  normal  form,  so  that  at  present  we  have  scarcely 
evidence  that  would  justify  us  in  separating  them. 

On  PI.  XXIII  is  figured  a  fine  specimen  of  a  gigantic  Baiera.^  described 
by  Professor  Fontaine  in  his  monograph^  with  the  name  B.  multifida-  This 
specimen  is  from  Clover  Hill,  Va.,  and  it  is  figured  to  show  the  close  re- 
semblance between  the  Virginia  and  Connecticut  plants  5  the  former  is 
much  more  robust,  but  the  characters  of  the  ultimate  divisions  are  essentially 
the  same,  and  the  northern  plant  may  only  be  a  dwarf  form  of  the  soxithern. 

In  my  descriptions  of  the  plants  collected  by  Mr.  A.  Eemond,  from  the 
Triassic  rocks  of  Los  Bronces,  Sonora,  I  liave  noticed  and  figured  another 
and  quite  different  species  of  Baiera,  to  which  I  gave  the  name  of  JeanjMuUa 
radiata,  the  generic  name  being  practically  s}Mionymous  with  Baiera? 

Count  Saporta  has  recently  discussed  at  great  length  the  probable  rela- 
tions of  the  groups  of  plants  which  have  been  known  by  the  names  of  Baiera, 
JeanjoauUa,  etc'  He  regards  them  as  belonging  to  a  special  line  of  gym- 
nosperms  which  have  come  down  to  us  from  Carboniferous  times,  and  are 
now  represented  by  the  Ginglco  (Salishuria). 

Schimper*  also  describes  the  relations  of  Baiera  and  Jeanpaidia  to  each 

•  Mon.  U.  S.  Geol.  Survey,  No.  G,  1383,  pp.  8",  88. 
'^  Report  of  the  S.in  Juan  Expedition,  p.  148;  pi.  VII,  fi^j.  (j. 
'Pal^outologie  Irangaise,  V6g(?taiix,  vol.  :J,  183:!,  p. '251. 
^  Pal^oiitiologio  vdg^tale,  vol.  1,  pp.  422,  68'3. 


FOSSIL  PLANTS.  85 

other  and  to  other  plants,  and  he  takes  Ihe  apparently  sensible  view  that  the 
Wealden  Cydojiteris  digitata  Brong.  (Baiera  digitata  Schenk)  and  the  Rhaetic 
Jeanpaidia  Miinsteriana  Ung.,  though  perhaps  members  of  the  same  botan- 
ical group,  were  generically  distinct. 

Brongniart  and  Unger  regarded  Jeanpaidia  as  one  of  the  Bhizocarpce, 
allied  to  MarsUia,  but  Schenk  considers  it  a  fern.  He  also  supposes  that  it 
is  allied  to  Hausmannia  of  the  Wealden.  Its  relation  with  the  later  genus 
IS,  however,  very  doubtful. 

From  the  Amboy  clays  of  New  Jersey,  the  basal  portion  of  the  Creta- 
ceous system,  and  resting  immediately  upon  the  Triassic  beds,  I  have  ob- 
tained many  specimens  of  Hausmannia,  and,  though  there  is  a  remote  re- 
semblance in  the  mode  of  the  division  of  the  frond,  there  is  a  radical  differ- 
ence in  the  nervation,  and  they  probably  have  notliing  in  common. 

Equisetum  Rogersi  Schlmper. 
PL  XXII,  Figs.  5,  5ft. 

As  is  mentioned  in  the  preceding  sketch  of  the  plants  of  the  northern 
Trias,  Equisetum  Rogersi  occurs  at  Milford,  N.  J.  It  is  quite  abundant  in 
the  Richmond  coal  field  and  is  mentioned  by  many  writers  who  have  refer- 
red to  the  plants  of  that  region,  Rogers,  Brongniart,  Bunbury,  Schimper, 
and  others.  It  is  so  fully  described  b}^  Professor  Fontaine  in  his  monograph 
(p.  10)  that  only  a  brief  reference  to  it  is  needed  here. 

Some  specimens  obtained  at  Milford,  N.  J.,  now  in  the  collection  of 
Lafayette  College,  which  I  have  been  permitted  to  examine  through  the 
courtesy  of  Prof.  T.  C.  Portfer,  exhibit  fea  tures  which  are  worthy  of  remark. 
One  of  these,  a  compressed  stem,  6°™'  in  diameter,  has  the  joints  below  only 
2'^"'  apart,  ar.d  on  these  are  set  in  spiral  arrangement  disks  which  mark  the 
attachment  of  branches  or  roots  such  as  we  so  frequently  find  in  some  spe- 
cies of  Ccdamites  from  the  Coal  Measures.  These  disks  are  much  distorted 
and  obscured,  but  they  would  seem  to  have  been  elliptical  in  outline,  2™- 
long  by  1  ^'^™'  wide. 

In  the  same  rocks  and  associated  with  stems  of  Equisetum  are  the  dis- 
coid or  low-conical,  radiately  striate  bodies  which  I  have  already  referred  to 


86  TIIIASSIO  FISHES  AND  TLANTS. 

and  have  supposed  ^\ere  the  diapliragms  of  Eqnisctnm.  As  these  have  not 
been  before  figured  I  give  herewith  representations  of  tlio  flattened  base  of 
a  small  one  and  the  conical,  striated  upper  (?)  surface  of  anotlier. 

Equisetum  Meriani  (?)  Brong. 

Some  years  ago  Mr.  J.  B.  Woodworth,  now  of  Boston,  Mass.,  then  liv- 
ing in  Newark,  N.  J.,  sent  to  me,  with  a  number  of  other  fossil  plants  taken 
from  the  sandstone  quarries  near  that  city,  several  fragments  of  a  large 
plant  which  gave  no  clew  to  its  entire  form,  but  of  which  the  surface  was 
differently  marked  from  anything  I  had  before  obtained  from  our  Trias. 
The  fragments  were  flattened,  only  a  few  inches  square,  and  the  surface  was 
deeply  impressed  by  a  series  of  parallel,  angular  furrows  and  ridges,  three- 
eighths  of  an  inch  wide. 

The  general  aspect  of  the  fossil  was  very  like  that  of  a  fan-palm,  such  as 
we  frequently  find  fossilized  in  the  Tertiary  rocks.  It  had  also  somewhat 
the  aspect  of  a  SigiUaria,  but  the  sharply  angular  form  of  the  folds  and 
the  absence  of  leaf  scars  forbade  the  supposition  that  we  had  here  a  relic 
of  the  great  fluted  trees  of  the  Coal  period. 

In  reviewing  the  literature  of  the  Triassic  flora  I  have  found'  what  are 
apparently  representations  of  the  same  plant.  The  fossils  figured  by 
Sclienk  are  considered  by  him  as  portions  of  the  stems  of  Equisdnm  Meri- 
ani Brong.  {Calamites  Meriani  Heer),  a  well-known  plant  of  the  Upper  Trias 
of  Europe,  later  placed  by  Schimper  in  his  genus  ScMzoneiira. 

Until  the  fructification  of  these  Equisetoid  plants  of  the  Trias  shall  be 
found  which  will  permit  a  better  comparison  with  those  of  older  and  later 
formations,  it  is  a  useless  expenditure  of  time  to  discuss  the  question  whether 
they  are  species  of  Calamites  which  have  survived  from  the  Carboniferous 
age,  are  true  Equiseta,  or  are  species  of  an  extinct  genus  of  that  family.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  in  the  Permian  rocks  stems  of  Calamites  have  been 
found  a  foot  or  more  in  diameter  (C.  gigas,  Brong.),  on  which  the  longitud- 
inal ridges  are  as  broad  as  in  the  specimens  before  us,  but  in  these  the  ribs 
are  rounded  and  not  angular,  as  are  tliose  of  the  specimens  from  Newark. 

'Scbcnk's  Beitriige  zur  Flora  des  Keupers  uud  dcr  Rliatiscbeu  Formation,  Hamburg-,  18G4,  pi.  VIII, 
figs,  lo,  16. 


FOSSJL  PLANTS.  87 

This  latter  character  may  not,  however,  be  a  constant  feature,  as  Schenk 
gives  a  figure  of  one  specimen'  in  which  the  ribs  seem  to  be  rounded. 

More  material  must  be  obtained  before  much  can  be  said  about  the 
botanical  character  of  these  specimens,  but  they  possess  much  geological 
interest  from  their  evident  similarity  to  those  with  which  I  have  compared 
them,  and  their  occurrence  at  the  same  horizon  confirms  the  testimony  of 
other  fossils  as  to  the  Rhsetic  age  of  our  sandstones. 

SCHIZONEURA    PLANICOSTATA    RogCrS,  Sp. 

Portions  of  the  stems  of  this  plant,  so  common  in  tlie  Triassic  rocks 
of  Virginia,  are  occasionally  met  with  in  New  Jersey,  Connecticut,  and 
Massachusetts. 

This  was  first  described  by  Prof  W.  B.  Rogers  as  a  Calamites,  of 
which  it  has  very  much  the  aspect,  indeed,  specimens  of  Calamites  Cistii, 
Brong,  from  the  Coal  Measures  could  hardly  be  distinguished  from  the 
plant  under  consideration  in  some  stages  of  preservation. 

Professor  Fontaine,  in  the  Monograph  cited  (p.  14),  has  described  this 
plant  from  far  better  specimens  than  any  which  occur  at  the  north,  and  has 
given  reasons  for  uniting  it  with  ScMzoneura  of  Scln'mper.  Certainly  the 
stems  bear  a  close  resemblance  to  those  of  the  group  of  plants  which  have 
been  described  by  Schimper,  Schenk,  Nathorst,  and  others,  and  found  in  the 
Trias  and  Lias  of  Europe.  But  we  have  never  seen  any  foliary  appendages 
which  come  very  near  to  those  of  S.  paradoxa  figured  by  Schimper  and 
Mougeot  in  their  monograph  on  the  fossil  plants  of  the  Grfes  Bigarre'.  It 
is  probable  that  the  leaves  were  narrowly  linear,  somewhat  like  those  of 
ScMzoneura  Virginiensis  Fontaine,  and  were  deciduous  like  the  foliary  ap- 
pendages of  Calamites,  which  are  so  rarely  found  in  connection  with  the 
stem.  The  only  interest  that  attaches  to  the  imperfect  specimens  yet  found 
in  the  northern  Triassic  basins  comes  from  the  evidence  they  furnish  of 
a  close  relationship  between  the  deposits  which  contain  them  and  those  of 
Virginia. 


'  Op.  cit.,  pi.  VIII,  fig.  la. 


88  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

Pachyphyllum  simile,  n.  sp. 
PI.  XXir,  Fig.  2. 

Foliaffe  dimorplious,  on  the  large  branches  appressed,  sometimes 
scale-like,  on  the  smaller  twigs  longer,  crowded  or  open,  leaves  triangular 
or  falciform,  keeled,  pointed. 

In  the  Triassic  rocks  of  New  Jersey,  Connecticut,  and  Massachusetts 
slender  detached  twigs  of  coniferous  trees  are  frequently  met  with,  but  they 
are  usually  fragmentary  and  not  well  preserved.  They  show  two  forms  of 
foliage,  the  appressed  and  the  divergent,  and  they  vary  much  in  their 
strength;  some  twigs  being  very  slender,  with  comparatively  remote  leaves, 
while  on  others  the  leaves  are  longer  and  more  crowded.  These  differ- 
ences are  so  marked  that  I  have  been  led  to  think  the  specimens  rep- 
resent two  species.  Both  these  forms  are  represented  on  PI.  XXII,  Fig. 
2,  the  stronger  and  more  leafy  branches ;  Figs.  3,  3a,  3b,  the  more  slender 
twigs,  with  shorter  leaves.  To  the  first  I  have  given  the  name  Pachyphyllum 
simile  from  its  resemblance  to  F.  peregrinum  of  the  Jurassic.  The  other  I 
have  called  P.  hrevifolium.  As  will  be  seen  by  comparing  Fig.  2  with  the 
representation  of  P.  peregrinum  given  by  Saporta,'  there  is  a  marked 
resemblance  between  them,  but  our  plant  never  assumes  the  form  shown  in 
the  figures  of  P.  peregrinum  given  by  Lindley  and  Hutton-  or  by  Saporta  on 
PI.  XL VI  of  the  volume  just  quoted.  The  two  species  are  evidently  allied 
but  are  quite  distinct. 

This  plant  has  been  before  found  in  America  and  has  been  figured  and 
described,  though  from  bad  specimens  and  erroneously.  Prof  E.  Emmons^ 
)-epresents  a  twig  from  Turner's  Falls,  Mass.,  the  locality  from  which  that 
now  figui-ed  was  obtained.  It  is  evidently  the  same  thing,  but  is  badl}^ 
figured  and  wrongly  named  Walchia.  It  does  not  belong  to  tliat  genus  and 
can  be  referred  with  confidence  to  Pachyphyllum.  Professor  Fontaine,  in 
his  Monograph,  PI.  XLVII,  Figs.  G,  7,  represents  twigs  which  are  essen- 
tially identical  with  the  form  now  figured  from  Turner's  Falls.  The  larger 
of  these  two  twigs  is  copied  from  Professor  Rogers's  papei',  but  no  locality 

'  PaliSontologio  franpaise,  v^g^taux,  vol.  3,  1883,  jil.  XCVII. 

2  Fossil  Flora,  pi.  LXXXVIII. 

"Aui.  Geol.,  i)t.  f),  1857,  j).  108,  lig.  76. 


FOSSIL  PLANTS.  89 

is  given.  By  Fontaine  it  is  referred  to  Gheirolepis  Miinsteri,  but  I  have 
elsewhere  shown  that  it  can  not  be  a  Cheirolepis ;  we  find  C.  Munsteri  at 
Milford,  N.  J.,  but  it  is  plainly  distinguishable  from  this  both  by  cones 
and  by  foliage. 

Pachyphyllum  beevi  folium,  1^  sp. 
n.  XXir,  Figs.  3-3c. 

Foliage  dimorjjhous,  on  some  branches  closely  appressed  and  scale-like, 
on  terminal  twigs  divergent,  though  the  leaves  are  always  short  and  rela- 
tively broad.  Cones  ovoid,  one  inch  in  length  ;  scales  rhomboidal,  closely 
appressed. 

In  many  localities  the  Triassic  rocks  of  New  Jersey  and  the  Connect- 
icut Valley,  especially  where  they  are  fine,  gray,  or  more  rarely  reddish 
shales,  contain  great  numbers  of  slender  coniferous  twigs,  generally  short 
and  much  broken  up.  Of  these  two  forms  are  now  figured  which  may  be 
recognized  as  typical.  Figures  3  and  3ff  the  more  leafy,  and  36  the  more 
scaly  form.  Sometimes  we  find  twigs  bearing  leaves  that  are  longer  than 
those  here  shown  ;  leaves  that  are  divergent,  rather  open,  sometimes  spat- 
ulate,  and  never  really  acute.  These  may  be  a  phase  of  the  foliage  of  the 
present  species,  but  they  more  pi'obably  belong  to  P.  simile,  showing  a  sim- 
ilar diversity  of  form  to  that  seen  in  the  figures  of  P.  peregrinum  given  by 
Saporta.-^ 

The  plant  under  consideration  has  been  noticed  by  Emmons  and  Fon- 
taine ;  by  the  former  it  was  considered  a  Walchia,  and  given  the  two  names 
W.  hrevifolia  and  TK  gracilis.^  Professor  Fontaine^  refers  it  to  Cheirolepis 
Munsteri  Schimper ;  but  the  discovery  of  ovoid  cones  having  small  rhom- 
boidal scales  with  twigs  of  this  plant,  and  of  digitate  cone-scales  with 
branches  bearing  more  acute  leaves,  have  shown  its  distinctness  from  the 
true  CJieiroIepis  Munsteri. 

The  specimens  represented  in  Figs.  3a  and  3c  are  from  Turner's  Falls  ; 
those  in  Figs.  3  and  3&  from  Durham,  Conn. 

'  Pal^ontologie  fratif  aise,  v^g^taux,  vol,  3,  pi.  XLVIII,  figs.  2,  3. 
2  Am.  Geol.,  pt.  6,  1857,  pp.  107,  108,  figs.  74,  75. 
=  Mod.  cited,  pp.  88,  89. 


90  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

Cheirolepis  Munsteei  Schimper. 

PI.  XXII,  Figs.  4,  4rt. 

In  my  general  sketch  of  the  Triassic  flora  I  iiave  referred  to  this  plant, 
and  have  said  perhnps  all  that  it  is  necessary  to  say  in  regard  to  it.  I 
will  only  add  that  the  foliage  which  I  have  described  as  expanded  in  the 
same  plane,  and  having  somewhat  the  general  aspect  of  that  of  Thuja  or 
Libocedrus,  closely  resembles  that  figured  by  Schenk  in  his  Fossile  Flora 
der  Grenzschichten,  and  the  cone  scales  are  also  nearly  identical  with  those 
he  represents ;  so  that  there  would  seem  to  be  no  good  reason  why  they 
should  be  regarded  as  distinct.  Schenk  calls  tliis  plant  Brachyphyllum  Miin- 
sferi,  but  Schimper  has  shown  that  the  digitate  cone  scales  separate  this 
from  all  other  species  of  that  genus,  and  he  makes  it  the  type  of  his  Cheiro- 
lepis. The  pinnate  arrangement  of  the  branchlets  of  our  plant,  which  must 
have  given  it  the  general  aspect  of  Thuja,  though  the  leaves  are  quite  dif- 
ferent, is  not  shown  in  Schenk's  figures,  and  it  is  therefore  possible  that 
this  will  constitute  a  specific  distinction;  but  with  so  many  other  characters 
in  common  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  this  is  not  also  shared  by  the  Euro- 
pean and  American  plants. 

Otozamites  latior  Saporta. 

PI.  XXIV,  Figs.  ],  2,  2a. 

On  another  page  of  this  memoir  I  have  referred  to  the  geological  im- 
portance of  this  plant,  which  is  one  of  the  several  species  common  to  our 
Upper  Triassic  rocks  and  the  Rhfetic  of  Europe.  Up  to  the  present  time 
we  have  found  this  only  at  Durham,  Conn.,  but  it  is  there  quite  abundant. 
The  general  character  of  the  fronds  is  fairly  represented  in  the  figures  now 
given.  They  are  from  one  foot  to  perhaps  two  feet  in  length,  and  from  two 
to  three  inches  wide ;  broadest  in  the  middle,  where  the  obliquely  set  pin- 
nules are  two  inches  in  length,  narrow,  linear,  and  pointed.  Toward  the 
sumnnt  of  tlie  frond  they  are  shorter  and  more  crowded,  while  near  the 
base  they  are  still  shorter  and  somewhat  irregularly  placed.  On  the  upper 
side  of  the  rachis  the  bases  of  the  pinnules  are  elegantly  adjusted  to  one 
another  in  alternate  order,  the  line  of  contact  between  them  being  sinuous  or 


FOSSIL  PLANTS.  91 

zigzag.  The  bases  are  auricled,  the  upper  lobe  is  greatly  developed,  the 
attachment  being  at  a  single  point,  and  from  this  the  fine  and  parallel  nerves 
radiate  to  all  parts  of  the  margin  after  the  manner  of  the  genus  as  shown  in 
Fig.  2a. 

On  a  slab  of  slate  now  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  S.  W.  Loper,  at  Dur- 
ham, several  of  the  fronds  are  shown  radiating  from  a  central  area,  proba- 
bly the  summit  of  the  stem.  Of  the  stem  itself,  which  was  doubtless  some- 
what succulent,  we  have  as  yet  found  no  traces. 

Localit}',  black  shales,  associated  with  Ischypierus,  Catoiiterus,  etc., 
Durham,  Conn. 

Otozamites  beevifolius  F.  Br. 

PI.  XXIV,  Fig.  3. 

Among  the  many  fi-onds  of  Otozamites  obtained  at  Durham  there  are 
some  of  small  size,  set  with  short,  crowded,  rounded,  or  blunt-pointed  pin- 
nules. These  correspond  perfectly  to  some  of  the  specimens  of  Otozamites 
hrevifoUns  figured  by  Saporta,  Braun,  Schimper,  and  Schenk.  One  of  these 
is  represented  on  PI.  XXIV.  We  have  not  yet  sufiicient  material  for 
comparing  these  fronds  with  those  which  I  have  referred  to  Otozamites  latior, 
but  it  has  seemed  to  me  possible  that  these  -two  forms,  which  are  here  and 
in  Europe  so  frequently  intermingled,  may  be  but  varieties  of  the  same 
species,  the  smaller  fronds  belonging  to  small  plants  or  representing  a  spe- 
cial stage  of  growth.  Whether  this  is  true  or  not,  it  is  a  matter  of  much 
interest  that  we  here  find  fronds  which  correspond  so  perfectly  to  those 
common  in  the  Rluetic  of  Germany  and  France. 

In  Schenk's  admirable  memoir,  Die  fossile  Flora  der  Grenzschichten, 
Pis.  XXXI,  XXXIII,  and  XXXIV,  a  series  of  excellent  figures  are 
given  whicli  perfectly  represent  our  Durham  cycads,  both  the  larger  and 
the  smaller  forms  (Otozamites  latior  and  0.  hrevifolius). 

By  Schenk  they  are  considered  to  be  ferns,  as  they  were  by  Lindley, 
and  he  unites  the  two  forms  under  the  name  of  Otopteris  Bucldandi.  Prob- 
ably they  should  be  united,  but  it  is  hardly  possible  tliat  they  are  ferns. 

LocaHty,  Triassic  shales,  Durham,  Conn.,  collected  by  S.  W.  Loper. 


92  TEIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

Cycadinocarpus  Chapini  Newb. 
PI.  XXIV,  Fig.  i. 

Fruit  broad-ovoid,  nearly  orbicular,  1.5  mm.  wide  by  18  mm.  long, 
compressed,  consisting  of  an  ovoid  nucleus  bordered  by  a  wing  or  margin 
which  is  emarginate  or  notched  above,  narrowed  and  becoming  obsol'ete 
below;  nucleus  excavated  in  a  broad  sulcus,  extending  from  the  base  to  the 
center  of  the  fruit,  and  traversed  centrally  by  a  depressed  line. 

This  interesting-  specimen  was  obtained  at  Durham,  Conn ,  by  Rev.  J. 
H.  Cliapin,  to  whose  courtesy  I  aa;i  indebted  for  the  opportunity  of  exam- 
ining it.  It  is  plainly  the  fruit  of  a  cycad,  and  perhaps  of  Otozamites  latior, 
which  is  quite  common  at  the  locality  where  it  was  found.  It  probably 
consisted  originally  of  a  hard,  ovoid,  compressed  nucleus,  surrounded  b)^  a 
sarcocarp  covered  with  a  leathery  rind.  When  compressed  in  fossilization 
the  nut  is  shown  in  relief,  and  the  envelope  forms  the  margin  about  it.  The 
fruit  of  Cycas  revohda  Avould  present  much  the  same  appearance  if  subjected 
to  compression  in  clay.  A  large  number  of  cycad  fruits  are  known,  but 
there  is  none  described  with  Avhich  I  have  been  able  to  identify  this. 

DiooNiTES  LONGiFOLius  Emmous,  sp. 
PJ.  XXV,  Fig.  4. 

One  specimen  only  of  this  plant  has  yet  been  found  in  the  Trias  of 
New  Jersey,  and  that  was  taken  from  the  quarries  at  Newark  by  Prof 
C.  H.  Hitchcock,  It  apparently  represents  the  basal  portion  of  a  frond  of 
large  size,  the  rachis  being  ver}'  strong.  The  pinnules  of  only  one  side  are 
shown.  These  diverge  at  a  large  angle,  are  linear,  attached  by  the  entire 
base,  and  are  decurrent.  Their  complete  length  is  not  shown,  but  they 
must  have  been  at  least  two  inches  in  length.  They  are  separated  by  in- 
tervals of  about  twice  their  breadth.  The  nervation  is  obscure,  but  appar- 
ently fine  and  parallel.  In  many  cycads  the  basal  pinnules  of  the  fronds 
are  shorter,  and  in  some  more  widely  separated  than  those  above.  They 
also  diverge  from  the  rachis  at  a  larger  angle.  It  is  almost  certain  that  if 
we  were  to  obtain  the  upper  portion  of  the  frond  of  which  we  here  have  the 
base  we  should  find  the  pinnules  more  approximated  and  diverging  at  a 
more  acute  angle  than  is  the  case  with  those  now  before  us.     Hence  we 


FOSSIL  PLANTS.  93 

should  have  specimens  closely  resembling  those  figured  by  Dr.  Emmons. 
Of  these,  one  (his  Fig.  83)  represents  the  middle  part  of  the  frond;  the  other 
(Fig.  82)  is  from  a  higher  portion.  This  is  inferable  from  the  fact  that  in 
one  the  rachis  is  stronger  and  the  pinnules  are  more  separated  and  diverge 
at  a  larger  angle  than  in  the  otlier. 

Dr.  Emmons  does  not  describe  the  nervation,  but  represents  it  as  fine 
and  parallel.  This  would  exclude  it  from  the  genus  Cycadites,  in  which  the 
pinnules  are  traversed  by  a  strong  midrib.  Both  Dr.  Emmons's  species  and 
that  now  figured  belong  clearly  to  Diooniks,  as  defined  by  Schimper.^ 

LOPEEIA    SIMPLEX,    n.    Sp. 

PI.  XXV,  Figs.  1,  2,  3. 
One  of  the  most  common  plants  found  in  the  Trias  at  Durham,  as 
usually  seen,  is  a  straight,  smooth,  unjointed  stem,  once  cylindrical,  but 
now  much  compressed  and  replaced  by  jet.     Of  some  of  these  stems  por- 
tions have  been  obtained  an  inch  or  more  in  width  and  twelve  or  fifteen 
inches  in  length,  but  the  plant  was  evidently  a  large  one,  and  these  are 
mere  fragments  of  it.    Recently  Mr.  S.  W.  Loper  has  found  specimens  which 
show  more  of  this  organism  than  was  before  known,  and  some  of  these  are 
represented  in  our  plate.     Of  these,  that  best  preserved  consists  of  a  stem 
such  as  I  have  described,  but  which   divides  above  into   a  number   of 
branches,  all  springing  from  tlie  same  point.     These  branches  are  slender 
and  flexuous,  and  bear  what  seem  to  be  alternate,  linear,  acute,  grass-like 
leaves,  but  in  their  state  of  preservation  showing  no  nervation.     This  is  ap- 
parently the  same  plant  as  that  figured  by  Emmons  ^  and  copied  by  Fon- 
taine.*    Professor  Fontaine  refers  to  these  specimens  on  pages  119  and  120,* 
and  "for  convenience  of  reference"  gives  them  the  name  of  Bambusium 
Carolinense.     I  venture  to  substitute  for  that  name  the  one  now  given,  as  it 
is  quite  certain  that,  the  plants  under  consideration  had  no  close  botanical 
relationship  with  Bamhusa  (the  Bamboo),  which  is  a  grass,  and,  like  all  the 
Graminece,  has  jointed  stems.     Without  more  material  it  will  be  impossible 
to  determine  with  any  certainty  the  botanical  relations  of  this  plant,  but  it 
was  most  probably  monocotyledonous,  perhaps  aquatic — a  kind  of  gigantic 

iPal^ontologie  v^g^tale,  vol.  2,  p.  147.  s  Monograph  cited,  pi.  LII,  figs.  1,  2, 

2  Am.  Geol.,  pt.  6,  1857,  pp.  131,  132,  figs.  90,  100.  ■•  Op.  oit. 


94  TRIASSIC  FISHES  AND  PLANTS. 

SchoUera.  The  plant  figured  by  Emmons^  is  perhaps  the  summit  of  a 
stem  which  divides  into  five  branches,  and  his  figure  102^  represents  a 
smaller  specimen  with  four  divisions.  This  he  compares  with  Baiera,  but  I 
am  led  to  doubt  its  connection  with  that  genus,  both  from  its  manner  of 
branching  and  from  the  fact  that,  associated  with  the  larger  stems  described 
above,  I  have  one  even  smaller  than  that  represented  by  Emmons,  in  which 
the  stem  terminates  above  in  five  nearly  equal  branches 

Clathropteris  platyphylla.  Brong. 
PI.  XXII,  Fig.  6. 

At  Sunderland,  Westfield,  and  Durham,  in  the  Connecticut  Valley, 
fronds  of  Clntliropteris  have  been  frequently  met  with.  Much  more  rarely 
fragments  of  the  same  fern  have  been  obtained  from  the  coarser  beds  of 
Newark  and  Milford,  N.  J. 

In  1855  Edward  Hitchcock,  jr.,  described^  a  portion  of  a  frond  of  Cla- 
thropteris found  near  Easthampton,  Mass.,  about  the  middle  of  the  Triassic 
series.  To  this  plant  he  gave  the  name  of  C.  rectiiiscuhis;  but  it  has  the 
radiate  arrangements  of  the  lobes  or  pinna;  which  is  characteristic  of  C. 
platiiphylla  Brong.,  and  its  details  furnish  no  characters,  judging  from  his 
figure  and  description,  by  which  it  can  be  distinguished  from  that  species. 
Clathropteris  jjlati/phylla  is  a  ver}'  widely  distributed  fern  in  the  Liassic  and 
Rhsetic  strata  of  the  Old  World,  from  England  to  India  and  China,  and  it 
has  been  collected  by  Professor  Fontaine  in  the  Virginia  coal  series.  Fronds 
which  I  can  not  distingui.sh  from  those  of  this  species  also  occur  not  unfre- 
quently  at  Durham,  Conn.  Tliese  are  always  imperfect,  but  were  evidently 
of  large  size  and  had  a  digitate  or  radiate  arrangement  of  the  pinnae. 

The  fragment  now  figured  is  a  portion  of  the  upper  part  of  a  pinna, 
from  the  sandstone  of  Newark,  N.  J. 

Palissya?  sp. 

PI.  XXVI,  Figs.  1,  2. 

I  give  herewith  representations  from  photographs  of  two  views  of  a 
coniferous  trunk  such  as  is  frequently  found  in  tlie  sandstone  quarries  at 

>  Am.  Geol.,  p.  131,  fig.  99.        ^Op.  cit.,  p.  133.        =Am.  .Joiir.  Sci.,  2(1  series,  vol.  20,  ia5r>,  p.  22. 


FOSSIL  PLANTS.  95 

Newark,  N.J.  The  decorticated  surface  of  these  stems  is  marked  by  rhom- 
boidal  elevations,  which  somewhat  resemble  tlie  markings  on  the  trunks  of 
Lepidodenclron  when  denuded  of  their  coaly  envelope.  This  resemblance  has 
led  to  the  announcement  that  Leindodendron  had  been  found  in  our  Triassic 
rocks,  but  this  is  a  manifest  error.  Lepidodendron  did  not  pass  from  the 
Carboniferous  to  the  Mesozoic  age,  and  these  are  plainly  casts  of  the  trunks 
of  coniferous  trees. 

Since  this  was  written  my  attention  has  been  drawn  to  a  figure  of  the 
trunk  of  VoUmci  Cobiirgensis  Schaur  (Palasontographica,  vol.  11,  p.  308, 
PI.  XLVJ,  Fig.  2).  This  is  so  much  like  the  trunk  now  figured  and  the 
smaller  ones  not  uncommonly  met  with  in  the  quarries  at  Newark,  that  if 
we  had  anywhere  found  in  the  Trias  of  this  region  any  certain  traces  of 
Voltzia  I  should  have  little  hesitation  in  referring  our  specimens  to  that 
genus ;  but  no  VoJtzia  has  yet  been  found  in  the  New  Jersey  sandstones, 
while  Palissya  is  rather  common.  Hence,  I  have  been  led  to  believe  that 
these  trunks  and  branches  bearing  lozenge-shaped  markings  belonged  to 
the  latter  genus.  As  it  was  doubtless  closely  allied  to  VolUia  it  would  not 
be  at  all  surprising  if  we  should  find  that  the  decorticated  trunks  of  trees 
of  the  two  genera  were  much  alike. 


PLATES 


MON  XIV 7 


PLATE    I 


PLATE   I. 

Page. 
ISCHYPTEKUS  OVATUS  W.  C.  R.,  Booutou,  N.  J 27 

100 


o 
< 
> 

-I 


PLATE  II. 


PLATE   II. 

Page. 
IscHYPTERUS  Mausiiii  W.  C.  R.,  SuDcleiiaud,  llass '^>i 

102 


U.    B.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  I) 


ISCHVPTERUS  MARSHII. 


PLATE  III 


PLATE  III. 

Page. 
IscHYPTERUS  Agassizii  W.  C.  R.,  Boonton,  N.  J 3U 

104 


U.   S,   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  III 


ISCHYPTERUS  AGASSIZII. 


PLATE  IV. 


PLATE  IV. 

Page. 

IscHYPTERUS  MICROPTERUS  Newb.,  Durliam,  Couu 31 

Fig.  1 .  Fish  of  average  size 31 

2.  Unusually  large  individual - 31 

106 


PLATE  Y. 


PLATE    V. 

Page. 

ISCHYPTERUS  TENUICKPS  Ag.,  Suuderlaud,  Mass 32 

Figs.  1,  2.  Old  iudividiials,  showing  extreme  development  of  dorsal  scales 32 

3.  Young 32 

108 


U.   S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH   XlV       PLATE  V 


ISCHYPTERUS  TENUICEPS. 


PLATE  VI. 


PLATE  VI. 

Page. 

Fig.  1.  IscHYPTERUS  EOBUSTUS  Newb.,  Boouton,  N.J 36 

2.  IscHYPTEEUS  FULTU.S  Ag.,  Boontou,  N.  J 34 

uo 


1      -  - 

V 


PLATE  VII. 


PLATE    VII. 

Page 
Fig.  1.  IscilYPTERCS  fultus  Ag.,  Boonton,  N.  J.     Small  form 34 

2.  ISCHYPTERLS  ELEGAXS  Newb.,  BoontOD,  N.  J 37 

3.  IscHYPTERus  TENUICEPS  Ag.,  Sunderland,  Mass.     Mature  but  not  old  individual 32 

112 


U.   S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  VII 


1.   ISCHYPTERUS   FULTUS. 


2.   ISCHYPTERUS   ELEGANS. 


3.   ISCHYPTERUS  TENUICEPS. 


PLATE  VIII 


MON  xiy 8 


]>I.A'ri'^.    VTTI. 


I'k;.  I.   iNCIlYPrKlllIM  Al, ATI'S  N(^\v)),,  llDDiiInn,  N..I  . 

'J.    iMI'llVI'r'Um'M    Al, ATI'S    N<r\vll.,    lldllllllln,   N.   .1 . 


:t7 

:i7 


111 


PLATE   IX. 


PLATE    IX. 

Page 

IscHTPTERus  MoDESTUS  Newl).,  Booutou,  N.  J 38 

Fig.  1.  Young  iudiviclual 38 

2.  Mature  individual 38 

3.  Old  individual   38 

116 


U.   S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  IX 


iSCHYPTERUS  MODESTUS. 


PLATE  X. 


PLATE    X, 

Page. 
Fig.      1.  IscHTPTERUs  ELEGAXS  Newb.,  Boonton,  N.  J 37 

2,3.    ISCHYPTERUS  LENTICULARIS  Newb.,  BoontoD,  N.  J 39 

118 


U.  S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  X 


,•^£-7  ■'"        fJ        "^ 


"\. 


'^^«?sr^    '^-r^'-— "--  -  >  - 


1        ^^■^•^ 


~^— r.sJSS<i3<;s'— ^-'""' 


(. 


/'       *^'^"'-7 


B-'-::>-5*^<^^    ' 


\ 


1.   ISCHYPTERUS   ELEGANS. 


2.3.   ISCHYPTERUS   LENTICULARIS. 


PLATE  XI 


PLATE  XI. 

Page. 

Fig.  1.  IscHYPTERUs  LiSKATus  Newb.,  Boouton,  N.  J 40 

2.    ISCHYPTERUS   LINEATUS 40 

120 


PLATE  XII 


PLATE    XII. 

Page. 

Fig.  1.  IscHYPTERUS  MACROPTERDS  W.  C.  R.,  Boontou,  N.  J 41 

a.  IscHYPTERUS  MICROPTERUS  Newb.,  Durham,  Conn.     Young  individual 31 

3.  IscHYPTERUS  Braunii  Newb.,  Weehawken,  N.J.     Young 43 

1^2 


o 
I 
< 


PLATE  XIII. 


PLATE  XIII. 

Page. 

Figs.  1,2,2a.  Ischypteeus  Braunii  Newb. ,  Weehawken,  N.  J 43 

3.  IscHYPTERUs  LATUS  J.  H.  E.,  Plainfield,  N.  J 46 

4.  IscHYPTERUS  PARVUS  W.  C.  E.,  Turner's  Falls,  Mass 45 

5,5(1.  IsCHYPTERUS  MINUTUS  Newb.,  Durham,  Conn 48 

124 


U.   S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  XIII 


1.  2.   ISCHYPTERUS   BRAUNll.  3.   ISCHYPTERUS   LATUS.  4.   ISCHYPTERUS  PARVUS.  5.   ISCHYPTERUS  MINUTUS. 


PLATE  XIV. 


PLATE    XIV. 

Page. 
Fig.  1.  ISCHYPTERUS  ELEGANS  Ncwb.,  Booutoii,  N.  J.     iLnIividiial  of  iiieilium  size,  sliowiog 

broad  dorsal  fin 3" 

2.  IscHYPTERUS  ELEGANS  Newb.,  BoontoD,  N.  J.     Largest  indi  vidual  Seen 37 

3.  IscHY'PTERU.s  GIGAS  Ncwb.,  BoontoD,  N.  J.     Tail  of  a  fish  nearly  two  feet  iu  length..  49 

126 


U.    S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  XIV 


1,  2.   ISCHYPTERUS   ELEGANS. 


3.   ISCHYPTERUS  GIGAS. 


PLATE  XV. 


PLATE    XV. 

Page. 

Catopterus  Eedfieldi  Egerton,  Durham,  Conu ■. 53 

Fig.  1.  Broad  form.    Old  individual ".  53 

2.  Normal  form  of  young  individual - 53 

3.  Part  of  mature  fish,  showing  details  of  fins 53 

128 


U.    S.    GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  XV 


CATOPTERUS   REDFIELDI. 


PLATE  XVI 


MON  XIV 9 


PLATE    XVI. 

Page. 

Fig.       1.  Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  R.,  Boonfoii,  N.  J.     Mature  individual,  broad  form 55 

2,  :3.  Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  E.,  BooDtou,  N.  J.     Posterior  portions  of  bodies  of  two  55 

indi vidals  of  slender  form 55 

4,  5.  Catopterus  parvulus  W.  C.  R.,  Boouton,  N.  J 60 

130 


PLATE  XYII. 


PLATE     XVII. 

Figs.  1,  2,  3,  4,  Catopterus  minok  Nowb.,  Durham,  Coqu 57 

132 


U.   S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  XVIl 


CATOPTERUS    MINOR. 


PLATE   XYIII. 


PLATE    XVIII. 

Page. 

Figs.  1,  2.  Dictyoptge  macrura  Egerton,  Clover  Hill,  Va G4 

3.  Catopterus  ornatus  Newb.,  Durham,  Conn 58 

3a.  Scales  of  dorsal  line  enlarged 58 

36.  Scales  of  side  enlarged 58 

4.  Catopterus  sp.,  young,  Durham,  Conn 50 

5.  Catopterus  anguilliformis  W.  C.  R.,  Durham,  Conn 59 

134 


U.   S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  XVIII 


^S^%:^^-^-^^&J 


3a 


3b 


aSE - 


1,2.   DICTYOPVGE   MACRURA. 


3.  CATOPTERUS  ORNATUS. 


4.  CATOPTERUS. 


5.  CATOPTERUS  ANGUILLIFORMIS. 


PLATE  XIX. 


PLATE    XIX. 

Page. 

Figs.  1,  '2.  Ptycholepis  Marshii  Newb.,  DuiUam,  Conn 6(j 

2a.  Scales,  enlarged C6 

3,  4.  AcENTROPHORUS  CHicoPENSis  Newb.,  Chicopee  Falls,  Mass 69 

136 


U.   S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  XIX 


1,2.    PTYCHOLEPIS   MARSHII. 


3,4.   ACENTROPHORUS  CHICOPENSIS. 


PLATE   XX. 


PLATE    XX. 

Page. 

DiPLURUs  LONGiCAUDATUs  Newb.,  Boontou,  N.  J 74 

Fig.  1.  Fish,  complete - 74 

2.  Second  caudal  fin,  Boonton,  N.  J '         74 

3,4.  Scales  outer  surface,  showing  ornamentation,  natural  size,  Durham,  Conn "4 

5.  A  group  of  scales  showing  inner  surface,  Durham,  Conu 74 

138 


,   GEOLOGICAL  SJRVEV 


DIPLURUS  LONGICAUDATUS. 


MONOQRAPM  «iv     Plate  x 


OIPLURUS  LONGICAUDATUS. 


I 


I 


PLATE  XXI. 


PLATE  XXI. 

Page. 

DEXDROPnYCCS  TRiAS.sicus  Ncwb.,  PortlancT,  Conn 62 

Fjg.  1.  Basal  portion  of  a  frond i^2 

2.  Extremities  of  a  group  of  branches 82 

140 


U.    S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEV 


MONOGRAPH  XIV       PLATE  XXI 


DENDROPHYCUS  TRIASSICUS- 


PLATE  XXII 


PLATE    XXII. 

Page. 

Fig.    1.  Baiera  MUNSTERlANA  (?)  Ung.,  Darham,  Conn 84 

2.  Pachypiiyllum  simile  Newb.,  Sunderland,  Mass 88 

3.  Pachyphyllum  BREViFOLiUM  Newb 89 

3(7.  Twig  -n-itli  divergent  leaves 89 

Sl>.  Twig  with  appressed  leaves 89 

3e.   Cone 89 

4.  C'HEir.OLEPis  MuxSTERl  Schimper,  sp.,  Milford,  N.  J 90 

4a.  Cone  scale , 90 

5.  Phragma  of  Eqoisetum  Rogersi  SoLimper,  Milford.N.J 85 

5a.  Phragma  of  Equisetuji  Eogersi,  underside 85 

6.  Clathropteris  platyphylla  (?)  Bi-ong.,  Milford,  N.J .._ 94 

142 


U.  S.  GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  XXII 


1.  BAIERA  MUNSTERIANA. 

2.  PACHYPHYLLUM  SIMILE. 


3.  PACHYPHYLLUM   BREVIFOLIUM. 

4.  OHEIROLEPIS  MUNSTERI. 


5.  PHRAGMA  OF  EQUISETUM   ROGERSI. 

6.  CLATHROPTERIS  PLATYPHYLLA. 


PLATE   XXIII. 


PLATE    XXIII. 


Baiera  multifida  Fontaine,  Clover  Hill,  Va 
144 


Page. 
84 


U.   S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  XXlll 


BAIERA    MULTIFIDA. 


PLATE    XXIY. 


HON   XIV 10 


PIRATE    XXIV, 

Page. 

Fig.     1.  Otozajiites  latior  Saporta,  Durbam,  Conn.     Base  of  frond,  natural  size 90 

2.  Otozamitiks  LATioi!  Saporta,  Durham,  Conn.     Summit  of  frond DO 

2a.  Piirtiou  enlarged  to  show  nervation 90 

3.  Otozamites  BREViFOLius  Fr   Br.,  Dnrliam,  Cnnn 91 

4.  Cycadixocarpus  Chapini  Newb.,  Durham,  Conn - 92 

146 


U.  S.  GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


MONOGRAPH  xrv      PLATE  XXIV 


1,  2.  OTOZAMITES  LATIOR. 


3.  OTOZAMITES  BREVIFOLIUS. 


4.  CYCADINOCARPUS  CHAPINl. 


i 


PLATE    XXY. 


PLATE    XXV. 

Page. 

Fig.  1.  LoPERii.  simplex  Newli.,  Durham,  Coun.     Main  stem  ranch  flattened 9:^ 

2.  Branch  anil  leaves 93 

3.  Branches  springing  from  stem,  Dnrliam,  Conn 93 

4.  DiooNiTES  i,oNGii'Oi,ius  Emnions,  sp.,  Newark,  N.  J . 92 

148 


MONOGRAPH  XIV      PLATE  XXV 


U.   S.   GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 


1,  2,  3.   LOPERIA   SIMPLEX. 


4.   DIOONITES  LONGiFOLIUS. 


PLATE    XXVI. 


PLATE    XXVI. 

Figs.  1,2.  Trunk  of  couifer  (Palissija'!)  decorticated,  showing  rhoraboidal  markings  on  sur- 
face, Newark,  N.  J 94 

150 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Acentroplioras,  generic  description  of 67-G9 

aflfinities  of,  with  Iscbypterua C7 

alUancea  of,  with  Palosoniscus G8, 69 

chlcopenisis,  description  of C9 

Agassiz,  L,,  cited 20,41 

Baiera 12 

Miinsteiiana,  description  of 84 

multifida,  resembles  Miinsteiiana 84 

Eird  or  reptile  tracks ■. 5 

Bunbury,  C.J.  F.,  cited si,  9-11 

Catopterus,  generic  description  of 50,  51 

most  beautiful  of  fossil  fishes 51 

not  found  iu  Mesozoic  rocks  of  Old  "World 51 

species  of i 19-21 

gracilis,  allusions  to 1 1, 19,  22 

description  of 55-57 

Redfieldi,  structure  of  head  of 53 

description  of 53 

form  of tlO 

naacrurus 20, 21 

minor,  description  of 57,  58 

akin  to  C.  ornatus 58 

ornatus,  description  of 58 

of  form  and  size  of  C.  minor 59 

anguilliforruis,  description  of 59 

parvulus,  description  of 59 

Cbapin,  J.  H.,  acknowledgments  to 92 

Cheirolepia  Miinsteri,  account  of 90 

Clathropteris  platy phylla 12, 94 

Coal  measures  of  Pennsylvania 8 

Colorado,  fossils  from 22 

Connecticut,  fossils  from xi,  xiii,  xiv,  4^8,  II,  12, 19-95 

Cycadinocarpus  Chapini 92 

Davis,  W.  M.,  cited 6, 7 

Dendropbycus  triassicus,  description  of 83 

iu  Portland  sandstones 83 

Dictyopyge,  generic  description  of 61-64 

previously  considered  Catopterus  macrurus 62 

differences  of  the  genera 63 

comparison  of  fisbos  of  American  Trias 63 

macrura,  description  of 11, 64 

Diplurus,  generic  description  of 70 

comparison  of,  with  living  siluroids 7J 

resemblance  of,  to  Ccelacanthus,Holopliagus,  and 

Macropoma 71,  72 

lougicaudatus,  description  of 74r-7G 

Diuonit.es  longifolius,  description  of 92,93 

Egerton,  P.,  cited  xi,  11,  20,  25, 28,  34,  53,  56,  63,  65.  72 

Kmerson,  B.  K.,  cited xiii,  xiv 

Emuious,  E..  cited  xi,  9, 10, 12,  32,  88,  b9 

Equisetum  Rogersi,  description  of 12,85 

Meriani  (?) 86 

resemblance  of,  to  Calamites  gigas 86 

Eurynotus  tenuiceps 19,24 


Page. 

Fontaine.  W.M.,  cited xi,  10, 12, 13, 87-89, 94 

Fossil  fishes,  Triassic,  list  of,  from  Trias  of  New  Jer- 
sey and  Connecticut 23 

Fossil  plants,  lists  of,  fiom  Trias  of  New  Jersey  and 

Connecticut. 79 

Gratacap,  L.  P.  cited 4i 

Geologic  equivalents  of  Triassic  rocks S 

Heer,0.,  cited 10 

Hills,  K.C.,  cited 22 

Hitchcock,  C.  H,,  acknowledgments  to 92 

Hitchcock,  E.,  cited 9,12,32,45 

Hitchcock,  E.,  jr.,  cited  94 

Howell,  E.  E.,  cited 'd2 

Huxley,  T.  H.,  cited  71,74 

Iscliypterus,  generic  description  of 24 

allied  to  Semionotus 25 

allied  to  Lcpidotus 25 

characteristics  of  genus 25 

species  of 20,21,21,25 

Agassizii,  description  of 30 

latus,  description  of ^6, 40 

ovatus,  descripiion  of 11,27 

Marshii,  description  of 28 

resembles  I.  Ag 29,  31 

micropterns,  description  of 31 

tenuiceps,  description  of 32 

resembles  I.  ovatus 33 

fultus,  description  of 32 

allied  to  P.  macropterus 35 

robustus,  description  of 36 

allied  to  I.  ovatus 36 

allied  to  Semionotus ^  -  36 

elegans,  description  of .       37 

resemblance  in  form  to  I.  lineatus  -  - 37 

alatus,  description  of 37 

modestus,  description  of 38 

allied  to  I.  elegaus 38 

lenticiilaris,  description  of 39 

similar  in  form  to  I.  ovatus 39 

diflferentiated  from  I.  microp  terns 39 

lineatus,  description  of 40 

differences  from  I.  tenuiceps,  I  lenticularis,  1. 

elegans,  and  I.  fultus 40 

closely  allied  to  I.  alatus 40 

macropterus,  description  of 41 

resemblance  to  P.  macropterus,  P.  fullus,  and 

I.  fultus 41,42 

Braunii,  description  of 43 

intermediate  between  T.  tenuiceps  and  Acen- 

tropborus  cbicopensis 44 

reasons  for  classifying,  as  a  species  distinct 

from  P.  latus  and  I.  latus 44 

parvus,  description  of 45 

reasons  for  classification 45 

151 


152 


INDEX. 


Page. 

lechjpteras,  minatus,  deacriptioD  of 48 

gigas,  description  of 49 

Kirkby,  J.'W".,citea 68,  G9 

Lesquereux,  Leo,  cited 82 

Loperia  simplex 93 

Loper,  S.  "W.,  acknowledgmenta  to xiv,  51,  5i,56,  65,  67, 

74,  80,  81,  91,  93 

Lyell.C,  cited 9,10,20,28,53 

MacrotODiopteris  magn  ifolia 12 

Marcou,  J.,cited 9-11 

Marsh,  0.  C,  cited xiii.xiv,  26 

Marsh,  0.  C.actnowledgments  to 67 

Massachusetts,  bird  tracks  in xi,  12 

fossils  in  -...- 21,27,29,30,34,45,47.67.70,79 

New  Jersey,  fossils  from xiii,  sir,  5-8, 11, 12, 19-95 

New  Mexico,  fossils  from 14 

New  York,  fossils  from 4 

North  Carolina,  fossils  from xi,  4, 9-12, 22 

Ohio,  fossils  from xii 

Otozamites  latior 13 

geological  importance  and  general  character  of  90 

bre  vifolius 91 

Macombii 14 

Pachypbyllum  simile,  description  of 88 

resemblance  of,  to  P.  peregrinum 88 

brevifolium,  description  of 89 

Palseoniscus,  species  of 19, 20,  24 

faltus 19,24 

latns 19 

ovatas,  description  of 27, 28 

resemblance  to  Ischypterus  tenuiccps 28 

Palissya  (?) 94,95 

Braunii 13 

Pecopteris  bullatus 14 


Page. 

Pecopteris  falcatus 14 

Pennsylvania,  coal  measures  of 8 

fossils  from 82 

Plants,  fossil,  list  of,  from  Trias  of  New  Jersey  and 

Connecticut 79 

Porter,  T.  C. ,  acknowledgments  to 85 

Ptycbolepis,  generic  description  of 65 

Marshii,  description  of 66, 67 

Bollensis,  how  differentiated 66 

curtus,  characteristics  of 66, 67 

Redfield,  J.  H.,  cited si-siT,  19, 20, 27^ 29, 30, 34, 

46.  47,  55,  5G,  64,  70 
Redfield.^V.  C,  cited,  .si,  19,  22,  26,  30,  34-36,  41,  42,  45.  59,  6U,  62 

Eedfield,  TV".  C. ,  ackno  wledgments  to 60 

Kemond,  A.,  acknowledgments  to 84 

Kogers,  H.  D..  cited 6,9,82 

Rogers,  W.B.,  cited sl„9,  87,88 

Russell,  I.e., cited 6 

Russell,  I.  C,  acknowledgments  to  xiv 

Saporta,  G.,  cited 12,  88 

Schenk,  A.,  cited 91 

Schizoneura  planicostata 12, 87 

Semionotus,  resemblance  to  Ischypterus 25,26 

Stiiiver,  J.,  cited 63 

Stuart,  R.L.,  cited 29 

T0enioi)teri3  magnifolia, 12, 14 

Taylor,  R.C 8 

Thecodont  saurians - 9 

Traquair,  R.  H.,  cited 24,68,70 

Triassic  fishes,  list  of 23 

Virjiiuia,  fossils  from si,  4, 10-12,  20,  22,  62,  63,  84 

Whit  fit^ld.  R.  P. .  cited siii,  xiv 

Winkler,  T.C.,  cited. 72,73 

"Woodworth,  J.  B.,  acknowledgments  to 86 


